THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


rro 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY 

THE   UNIVERSITY  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE 

Volume  III]  [Number! 


HISTORY 


OF 


ELECTIONS 


IN  THE 


AMERICAN    COLONIES 


CORTLANDT  FrBISHOP,  PH.D 


COLUMBIA  COLLEGE 

NEW  YORK 

1893 


JK1? 


COPYRIGHT,  1893, 

BY 
CORTLANDT  F.  BISHOP. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  I.     GENERAL  ELECTIONS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I.    HISTORY  OF  GENERAL  ELECTIONS.     .   .  i 

§     i.  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth 2 

§     2.  New  Hampshire 6 

§     3.  Rhode  Island 7 

§     4.  Connecticut  and  New  Haven 12 

§     5.  New  York 16 

§     6.  New  Jersey 22 

§     7.  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware 28 

§     8.  Maryland 33 

§     9.  Virginia.     . 35 

§  10.  The  Carolinas 36 

§  ii.  Georgia 43 

CHAPTER  II.    THE  SUFFRAGE. 

QUALIFICATIONS  REQUIRED  OF  ELECTORS 46 

§     i.  Ethnic 51 

§     2.  Political 52 

§     3.  Moral 53 

§     4.  Religious 56 

§     5-  Age.   .    . 64 

(Hi) 


IV  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§     6.  Sexual 65 

§     7.  Residential 66 

§     8.  Property 69 

A.  The  County  Franchise 69 

1 )  Class  of  Estate  Required 80 

2)  Length  of  Possession  Required  .    .  82 

3)  Proof  of  Property  Qualification  .    .  83 

B.  The  Town  or  Borough  Franchise  .    .  86 

§     9.  Miscellaneous 90 

§  10.  The  Admission  of  Freemen .  92 

CHAPTER  III.    THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  ELECTIONS.  .    .  98 

§     i .  The  Calling  of  an  Election 99 

§     2.  Publication  of  the  Writ no 

§     3.  Hours  of  Election 113 

§     4.  Election  Officers 114 

§     5.  Nomination  of  Candidates 120 

§     6.  Manner  of  Voting  (Personal  or  by  Proxy)  .  127 

§     7.  Method  of  Taking  the  Vote 140 

A.  New  England 140 

1)  Election  of  General  Officers.  ...  140 

2)  Election  of  Deputies 154 

B.  The  Royal  Provinces 155 

C.  The  Proprietary  Governments.    ...  165 

§     8.  Count  of  the  Votes 175 

§     9.  Return  of  the  Writ 179 

§  10.  Provisions  against  Fraud. 185 

§  n.  Contested  Elections 187 

§  12.  Privileges  of  Voters  .    .    , 190 

§  13.  Compulsory  Voting 190 

§  14.  Bribery    and    other    Means    of    Influencing 

Voters 192 

§  15.  Sanction  of  the  Election  Laws 198 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  V 

PACK 

PART  II.     LOCAL  ELECTIONS. 

CHAPTER  I.    HISTORY  OF  LOCAL  ELECTIONS  .   .   .   .  203 

§  i.  Town  Elections 204 

§  2.  Parish  Elections 212 

§  3.  Municipal  Elections 215 

CHAPTER  II.    THE  SUFFRAGE 219 

§  i.  Town  Elections 219 

§  2.  Parish  Elections 223 

§  3.  Municipal  Elections 224 

CHAPTER     III.     THE     MANAGEMENT     OF     LOCAL 

ELECTIONS 226 

§  i.  Town  Elections 226 

§  2.  Parish  Elections 229 

§  3.  Municipal  Elections 232 


APPENDIX  A.    WRITS,  RETURNS  AND  OATHS  ....  239 

I.  Writs  and  Returns 240 

II.  Oaths 255 

§  i.  Freemen  and  Electors 255 

§  2.  Election  Officers 268 

APPENDIX  B.    UNPUBLISHED  STATUTES  RELATING  TO 

ELECTIONS 269 

APPENDIX  C.    AUTHORITIES  QUOTED 289 

APPENDIX  D.    TABLES  OF  REGNAL  AND  PROPRIETARY 

YEARS 296 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


IN  THE 


AMERICAN     COLONIES, 


PART  I— GENERAL  ELECTIONS. 


CHAPTER  I.     HISTORY  OF  GENERAL  ELECTIONS. 

Throughout  the  colonial  period  of  American  history,  be- 
ginning at  the  earliest  times  and  continuing  down  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  there  existed  in  the  various 
colonies  some  system  of  popular  elections.  Deprived  as  the 
colonists  were  of  a  voice  in  the  deliberations  of  the  home 
government,  the  people  of  every  province,  whether  royal, 
proprietary,  or  chartered,  exercised  a  partial  check  on  the 
arbitrary  rule  of  the  governor  and  his  council,  by  means  of 
a  legislative  assembly,  whose  members  were  chosen  on  the 
basis  of  a  limited  popular  suffrage.  In  several  of  the  more 
northern  colonies  the  people  possessed  the  power  of  electing 
their  governor  and  other  general  officers,  while  nearly  every- 
where the  more  local  officials  held  their  positions  by  virtue  of 
popular  suffrage.  Nor  was  this  system  of  election  by  the 
people  entirely  confined  to  English  colonies ;  for,  as  we  shall 
see  in  due  course,  it  obtained  a  partial  foothold  in  the  Dutch 
province  of  New  Netherland. 


2  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

§  I.  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth.  In  Massachusetts  the 
election  of  a  Governor,  Deputy-Governor  and  eighteen  as- 
sistants on  the  last  Wednesday  of  Easter  term  was  authorized 
by  the  Charter  of  1628,  under  which  the  colony  was  founded.1 
Endicott,  the  first  governor,  was  chosen  by  the  company  in 
London  in  April,  1629,*  but  in  October  of  the  following 
year  it  was  resolved  that  the  Governor  and  Deputy-Gov- 
ernor should  be  chosen  by  the  assistants  out  of  their  own 
number.3  After  1632,  however,  the  Governor  was  chosen 
by  the  whole  body  of  the  freemen  from  among  the  assistants4 
at  a  general  court  or  assembly  held  in  May5  cf  each  year. 
The  Deputy-Governor  was  elected  at  the  same  time.  The 
charter,  as  already  mentioned,  provided  also  for  the  annual 
election  of  assistants  or  magistrates,  whose  number  was 
fixed  at  eighteen.6  This  number  appears  not  to  have  been 
regularly  elected,  for  in  October,  1678,  in  response  to  the  de- 
mands of  the  home  government  a  special  election  was  held  in 
order  to  bring  the  assistants  up  to  the  required  number  of 
eighteen.7 

Besides  the  officers  mentioned  in  the  charter,  an  order  of 
1647  declared  that  a  treasurer,  major-general,  admiral  at  sea, 
co'mmissioners  for  the  United  Colonies,  secretary  of  the 
General  Court  and  "such  others  as  are,  or  hereafter  may  be, 
of  like  general  nature"  should  be  chosen  annually  "by  the 
freemen  of  this  jurisdictiem."8  The  voting  took  place  in 

1  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  10,  12. 

2  Ibid.,  37  j.  *Ibid.,i<). 

*  Ibid.,  95.  5  Ibid.,  104. 

6  See  also  letter  of  Charles  II.  to  the  colony  in  1662,  which  states  that  not 
more  than  eighteen,  nor  less  than  ten  assistants  were  to  be  annually  chosen.     (4 
Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  2,  1 66. 

7  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  195. 

8  Laws,  chap.  45,  §  4,  ed.  Cambridge  1660,  28;   ed.  1814,  107;  2  Massachusetts 
Colonial  Records,  220;   Commissioners  for  United  Colonies  first  chosen  in  1644, 
2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  69. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  3 

Boston  in  May,  at  a  "  court  of  election  "  held  annually,  and 
freemen  could  vote  at  first  only  in  person,  but  eventually  by 
proxy  also,  if  they  desired  to  do  so.1  The  last  election  of 
general  officers  under  the  Charter  of  1628  was  held  on  May 
1 2th,  i686,2  and  soon  afterward  the  government  passed  into 
the  hands  of  a  President  and  Council  appointed  by  the  Eng- 
lish crown.3 

In  Plymouth,  as  in  Massachusetts,  general  officers  were 
elected  every  year  by  the  freemen  of  the  colony.  The  first 
governor  was  chosen  on  January  ist,  1620— I,4  though  the 
existing  records  do  not  mention  an  election  before  1632— 3.* 
The  other  general  officers  were  the  assistants.15  At  first  but 
one  was  chosen.7  From  1624  till  1633  four  were  elected 
and  it  was  not  until  the  latter  year  that  the  full  number  of 
seven  was  chosen.8  The  last  annual  election  of  governor 
before  the  merging  of  New  Plymouth  into  the  province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  took  place  in  June,  i69i.9  Besides  the 
governor  and  assistants,  two  commissioners  for  the  United 
Colonies  and  a  treasurer  were  annually  elected.10  Just  before 
Plymouth  was  incorporated  into  the  royal  province  of  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay,  a  law  was  passed  providing  that  county 
magistrates  or  associates  should  be  elected  by  the  freemen 
of  each  county.11 

I  See  chap,  iii,  §  6,  page  1 27,  post. 

*  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  513. 
8  3  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  207. 

4  I  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  Appendix. 

5  I  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  5. 

6 Laws,  1636;  Brigham  ed.,  1836,  37;  1 1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  7.  The 
laws  in  the  edition  of  1 836  are  also  reprinted  in  the  eleventh  volume  of  the  Ply- 
mouth Colony  Records. 

* 1  Palfrey,  History  of  Nno  England,  Appendix. 

8  Ibid. 

9  6  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  264. 

10  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  2,  Brigham,  257. 

II  Laws,  1691,  Brigham,  237. 


4  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

In  both  Massachusetts  and  New  Plymouth  all  freemen  had 
originally  a  personal  voice  in  the  transaction  of  public  busi- 
ness at  the  general  courts  or  assemblies  which  were  held  at 
stated  intervals.  One  of  these  was  known  as  the  Court  of 
Election,  and  at  this  were  chosen  the  officers  of  the  colony 
for  the  ensuing  year.  As  the  number  of  settlements  in- 
creased, it  became  inconvenient  for  freemen  to  attend  the 
general  courts  in  person  and  they  were  allowed  to  be  repre- 
sented by  deputies.  Massachusetts  provided  for  this  con- 
tingency by  an  act  of  I634,1  and  required  all  towns  contain- 
ing more  than  thirty  freemen  to  send  not  more  than  two 
deputies.  Towns  with  less  than  thirty  freemen  had  the  op- 
tion of  sending  two  deputies,  although,  if  they  had  less  than 
twenty,  they  could  send  but  one.  In  case  there  were  not 
as  many  as  ten  freemen  in  a  town,  they  could  unite  with 
their  nearest  neighbor  in  sending  a  deputy  to  the  general 
courts.  These  deputies  were  to  serve  for  a  year  and  were 
granted  the  "  full  power  of  all  the  freemen  deputed  to  them 
for  the  making  and  establishing  of  laws,  granting  lands,  etc., 
the  matter  of  election  of  officers  only  excepted."2  In  the 
course  of  time  the  number  of  deputies  became  so  large  that 
several  attempts  were  made  to  restrict  each  town  to  one  rep- 
resentative, but  they  were  unwilling  to  surrender  their  privi- 
lege of  sending  two  if  they  so  preferred.3  The  inconvenience 
of  compelling  all  freemen  to  attend  the  courts  of  election 
finally  gave  rise  to  the  proxy  system,  by  means  of  which,  as 
will  be  explained  in  a  later  chapter,  the  deputies  carried 
the  votes  of  their  townsmen  to  Boston.4 

In  Plymouth  the  system  of  sending  deputies  originated  in 
1639,  when  Plymouth  was  represented  in  the  general  court 

1  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  1 1 8. 
1  Laws,  chap.  35,  §§  I,  2;   ed.  1660,  25;   ed.  1814,  97. 
8  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  3,  88,  209,  217,  231. 
*  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  166  (1636-7),  188. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 


5 


by  four  deputies  and  each  of  the  other  towns  by  two.1  The 
function  of  these  deputies  was,  as  in  Massachusetts,  to  assist 
the  magistrates  in  making  laws,  but  these  enactments  were  for 
a  time  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  freemen,  who  were  re- 
quired to  attend  the  June  court  for  that  purpose.2  It  was 
not  till  1652  that  the  deputies  were  permitted  to  carry  the 
proxies  of  their  fellow  townsmen  to  the  court  of  election,3 
though  Rehoboth  had  been  granted  this  privilege  five  years 
before.4  In  1638  a  law  was  passed  which  gave  the  general 
court  power  to  reject  deputies  who  had  been  sent  by  the 
towns  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  magistrates  in  mak- 
ing laws,  if  they  judged  them  unfit;  in  such  cases  the  towns 
were  required  to  elect  other  representatives.0 

During  the  rule  of  Dudley  and  of  Andros,  the  whole  legis- 
lative power  of  Massachusetts  was  lodged  in  a  council,6  ap- 
pointed by  the  crown  through  its  governor,  and  popular 
election  in  the  New  England  colonies  was  limited  to  the 
choice  of  selectmen  at  a  single  meeting  held  annually  in  each 
town,  on  the  third  Monday  in  May.7 

The  ultimate  result  of  the  revolution  of  1688  in  England, 
was  to  unite  Massachusetts  and  New  Plymouth  under  the 
Charter  of  1691.  By  virtue  of  this  instrument,  "the  Great 
and  General  Court  of  Assembly"  was  to  consist  of  "the  Gov- 
ernor and  Council  or  Assistants  for  the  time  being,  and  such 
Freeholders  of  our  said  Province  or  Territory  as  shall  be  from 

1  See  I  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  126. 

2  Laws,  1638,  Brigham,  63;  Laws,  1646,  Brigham,  88.     These  deputies  were 
called  committees. 

3  Laws,  1652,  Brigham,  94;   Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  I;   Brig- 
ham,  256. 

4  Laws,  1647,  Brigham,  89. 

5  Brigham,  112;   Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  8,  Brigham,  259. 
8  2  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  3. 

7  3  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  427. 


6  HIS  TORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

time  to  time  elected  or  deputed  by  the  Major  parte  of  the 
Freeholders  and  other  Inhabitants  of  the  respective  Townes 
and  Places."  The  governor,  deputy  governor,  and  secretary 
and  the  first  assistants  were  appointed.  After  the  first  year, 
the  assistants  were  to  be  annually  elected  by  the  general  as- 
sembly.1 The  number  of  deputies  to  be  returned  by  towns 
having  more  than  a  hundred  and  twenty  freeholders,  was  fixed 
at  two  by  a  statute  passed  in  1692—3.  If  it  had  less  than  this 
number  of  freeholders,  it  could  elect  but  one.  Boston  alone 
could  return  four.2  Under  this  charter,  with  the  exception  of 
these  deputies,  the  only  elective  officers  whose  functions  were 
at  all  general  in  their  nature  were  the  county  treasurers,  and 
they  were  chosen  upon  the  basis  of  the  town  rather  than 
upon  the  basis  of  the  provincial  suffrage.3 

§  2.  New  Hampshire,  In  the  detached  settlements  which 
sprang  up  in  the  southern  portion  of  what  is  now  New 
Hampshire,  all  officers  were  originally  elected.  Thus  in 
Dover,  after  1633,  a  governor  was  annually  chosen/  while 
Exeter5  and  Hampton6  seem  to  have  had  a  similar  custom. 
In  Portsmouth  before  1640,  a  governor  and  two  assistants 
appear  to  have  been  elected.7  In  1641  these  towns  were 
taken  into  the  colony  of  Massachusetts,  and  as  such  sent 
deputies  to  the  general  court  at  Boston.8 

The  crown,  in  1679  constituted  a  separate  government  for 
New  Hampshire,  claiming  that  the  towns  had  been  un- 
lawfully taken  possession  of  by  Massachusetts.  The  com- 
mission of  John  Cutts  as  first  President  of  the  new  province 

1  See  charter,  3  Will,  and  Mary;   Poore,    Constitutions,   949;    I    Ames   and 
Goodell,  ed.,  1869,  Acts  and  Resolves,  10,  n,  12. 

2  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  38;    I  Ames  and  Goodell,  88. 

3  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  27,  §  I;    I  Ames  and  Goodell,  63. 

4  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  119.         b'Ibid.,  144,  et  seq. 
6  Ibid.,  147.  'llbid,,\\\. 

8  Ibid.,  154,  369,  etc. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  j 

ordered  him  to  call  a  general  assembly  by  summons  under 
the  great  seal,  in  such  a  manner  as  he  and  his  council  saw 
fit.1  By  virtue  of  the  authority  thus  granted,  the  first  as- 
sembly elected  by  the  province  met  at  Portsmouth,  on 
March  i6th,  1679-80,  and  was  opened  with  prayer  and  a  ser- 
mon.2 After  this,  assemblies  were  to  be  called  annually  at 
Portsmouth,  and  this  appears  to  have  been  done  except 
during  the  years  from  1686  to  1692,  during  a  part  of  which 
period  the  power  of  Andros  obtained  in  New  Hampshire.3 
Governor  Allen's  commission  of  1692  again  provided  for  an 
assembly  of  the  freeholders,4  and  the  last  assembly  elected 
under  the  royal  government,  met  in  May,  I/75.5  A  statute 
requiring  assemblies  to  be  re-elected  every  three  years  seems 
to  have  been  proposed  in  1723." 

§  3.  Rhode  Island.  Before  the  charter  of  19  Charles  I.,  the 
several  towns  that  finally  formed  the  colony  of  Rhode  Island 
appear  to  have  been  independent  of  one  another  and  to  have 
elected  their  own  officers.  The  early  records  are  incomplete, 
but  in  1638  we  find  that  Portsmouth  established  a  govern- 
ment "according  to  the  Word  of  God."7  Providence  in 
1636  also  did  something  similar.8  In  Portsmouth  during 
the  year  1638,  a  chief  magistrate  with  the  title  of  judge 
and  also  several  elders,  a  constable,  and  a  sergeant  appear  to 
have  been  chosen.9  Providence  had  some  part  in  this  elec- 
tion.10 

The  earliest  evidence  on  the  subject  of  elections  in  the 

1  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  379. 

2  I  Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  177;    I  New  Hampshire  Provincial 
Papers,  395. 

3  2  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers.  *  Ibid.,  58. 
6  7  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  371. 

8  4  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  1 14. 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  5.5,  85.  8  Ibid.,  14. 

9  Ibid.,  52,  64,  65.  10  Ibid.,  64. 


8  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

Newport  records  speaks  of  the  presence  of  the  judge  and 
elders  from  Portsmouth.  A  joint  government  was  set  up  for 
the  three  towns  and  it  was  determined  to  have  the  judge, 
elders  and  all  other  officers  of  the  "  Bodie  Incorporate  "  an- 
nually chosen  at  a  general  court  or  assembly  "  by  the  greater 
body  of  freemen  present."1  At  the  first  election  which  took 
place  in  the  month  of  March,  1639—40,  the  chief  magistrate 
was  given  the  title  of  governor,  and  the  next  that  of  deputy- 
governor,  the  remainder  being  assistants.  Two  of  the  assist- 
ants and  either  the  deputy-governor  or  the  governor  were  to 
be  chosen  from  each  of  the  towns.  Two  treasurers  and  a 
constable  for  Newport,  as  well  as  one  for  Portsmouth  and  a 
"sarjeant"  were  also  chosen.2  At  the  election  of  the  follow- 
ing year  the  government  was  declared  a  democracy  and  the 
power  of  the  freemen  to  make  laws  and  depute  officers  to 
execute  them  was  established.3 

The  charter  of  Providence  Plantations  granted  not  by 
the  crown  but,  on  account  of  the  civil  war  which  was  then 
raging  in  England,  by  Commissioners  under  authority  of 
Parliament,  allowed  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  power 
to  rule  themselves.4  In  addition  to  the  three  towns  already 
mentioned,  Warwick  was  taken  into  the  colony.5  It  seems 
that  this  town  had  established  no  government  of  its  own,  not 
because  it  was  opposed  to  such  a  thing,  but  because  it 
considered  legal  authority  from  England  necessary.6  The 
officers  of  the  colony,  chosen  at  the  first  election  in  1647, 
were  a  President,  four  assistants  (one  from  each  town), 
a  recorder,  a  treasurer  and  a  "  general  sargant,"  who  seems  to 
have  been  a  sort  of  high  sheriff.8  One  of  the  assistants  often 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  90,  98. 

2  Ibid.,  100,  101,  112,  120,  126,  127.  s  Ibid.,  112. 

*Ibid.,  145.  5  Ibid.,  129,  148. 

6  Ibid.,  129.  1 1bid.,  191. 

*  Ibid.,  197. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  g 

held  the  office  of  treasurer  as  well.1  It  was  not  long  before 
a  schism  took  place  in  the  colony.  Portsmouth  and  New- 
port, which  were  situated  on  Rhode  Island,  separated  them- 
selves from  Providence  and  Warwick.  Each  half  of  the  con- 
federacy had  a  separate  legislative  assembly  and  elected  its 
own  governor  and  two  assistants.2  After  various  negotia- 
tions between  the  opposing  factions,  the  breach  was  closed 
in  the  summer  of  1654  and  the  old  form  of  government  re- 
sumed.3 About  this  time  an  "attorney"  and  a  solicitor  were 
annually  elected.* 

After  the  accession  of  Charles  the  Second,  in  order  to 
avoid  any  question  of  the  validity  of  the  first,  a  second 
charter  was  obtained.  In  the  new  instrument,  under  date  of 
i663,5  the  officers  of  the  colony  were  named,  and  it  was  pro- 
vided that  in  future  a  governor,  a  deputy-governor  and  ten 
assistants  were  to  be  elected  annually  by  the  company,  which 
was  composed  of  all  the  freemen.6  By  a  resolution  of  the 
legislature  in  the  following  year,  it  was  provided  that 
annual  elections  should  be  held  for  minor  officers  as  under 
the  old  charter.7  A  plurality  of  votes  was  declared  sufficient 
to  elect,  but  in  case  the  person  chosen  refused  to  serve — and 
this  happened  quite  frequently — the  general  assembly  was 
empowered  to  fill  vacancies.8  Except  during  the  Andros 
regime,9  elections  were  held  regularly  until  the  Revolution.10 

The  bond  of  union  between  the  Rhode  Island  towns 
was  at  first  very  loose,  and  there  seems  to  have  been 
no  occasion  for  a  general  legislative  assembly.  It  was  not 
until  after  the  charter  of  1644  that  steps  were  taken  toward 

1  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  209.    2  Ibid.,  233,  244,  262,  265. 

8  Ibid.,  268,  278,  282.  *  Ibid.,  278,  282. 

5  15  Car.  II.  6  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  7. 

7 /&</.,  38.  *lbid.t  83. 

9  1686-1690;   3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  187,  267. 

10  7  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  510. 


! 0  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

a  meeting  of  deputies  from  the  towns.  Thus  we  find  that 
in  1647  Providence  sent  a  "committee"  to  Portsmouth  to 
join  with  committees  from  other  towns  in  order  to  form  a 
government.1  The  fifth  "act  and  order"  established  by 
this  convention  provided  that  each  town  should  send  a 
committee  to  every  general  court,  and  these,  like  the 
deputies  in  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth,  could  exercise  the 
powers  of  the  freemen  in  all  matters  excepting  the  election 
of  officers.2  The  committee  from  each  town  should  consist 
of  six  members.3 

The  power  of  making  laws,  possessed  by  these  commit- 
tees, was  subject  to  popular  approval  expressed  by  means 
of  a  process  somewhat  resembling  the  French  plebiscite  or 
the  referendum  as  it  exists  in  Switzerland  at  the  present  day.4 
Matters  of  general  import  were  required  to  be  proposed 
in  some  town  meeting,  and  notice  must  be  given  of  this  to 
each  of  the  other  towns.  Towns  which  approved  of  the  pro- 
position were  ordered  to  declare  their  o.pinion  at  the  next  gen- 
eral court  through  their  committees.  If  the  court  decided  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  a  law  was  passed  which  had  authority 
only  until  ratified  by  the  next  general  assembly  of  all  the 
people.  The  general  court  was  also  allowed  to  debate  mat- 
ters on  its  own  motion,  but  its  decisions  must  be  reported  to 
each  town  by  the  committee  representing  that  town.  A 
meeting  of  the  town  was  held  to  debate  on  the  questions  so 
reported,  and  then  the  votes  of  the  inhabitants  were  collected 
by  the  town  clerk,  and  forwarded  with  all  speed  to  the  re- 
corder of  the  colony.  The  latter  was  to  open  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  governor  all  votes  so  received,  and  if  a  majority 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  42. 

2  Ibid.,  147. 

3  Ibid.,  229,  236. 

*  I  Bryce,  American  Commonwealth,  448. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  !  i 

voted  affirmatively  the  resolution  of  the  court  was  to  stand 
as  law  until  the  next  general  assembly.1 

This  complex  method  of  referendum  was  repealed  in 
1650,  and  instead,  it  was  ordered  that  all  laws  enacted 
by  the  assembly  should  be  communicated  to  the  towns 
within  six  days  after  adjournment.  Within  three  days  after 
the  laws  were  received,  the  chief  officer  of  each  town 
was  to  call  a  meeting  and  read  them  to  the  freemen.  If  any 
freeman  disliked  a  particular  law  he  could,  within  ten  days, 
send  his  vote  in  writing,  with  his  name  affixed,  to  the 
general  recorder.  If  within  ten  days  the  recorder  received  a 
majority  of  votes  against  any  law,  he  was  to  notify  the  presi- 
dent of  that  fact,  and  the  latter  in  turn  was  to  give  notice 
to  each  town  that  such  law  was  null  and  void.  Silence  as 
to  the  remaining  enactments  was  assumed  to  mean  assent.2 

After  1658  the  recorder  was  allowed  ten  days  instead  of 
six,  as  the  period  within  which  the  laws  must  be  sent  to  the 
towns.  The  towns  were  given  another  ten  days  for  con- 
sideration, and  then  if  the  majority  of  the  free  inhabitants 
of  any  one  of  them  in  a  lawful  assembly  voted  against  a 
given  enactment,  they  could  send  their  votes  sealed  up  in 
a  package  to  the  recorder.  If  a  majority  from  every 
town  voted  against  the  law  it  would  be  thereby  nullified ; 
but  unless  this  was,  done  within  twenty  days  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  court  the  law  would  continue  binding. 
The  recorder  must  always  canvass  the  votes  of  the  towns  in 
the  presence  of  the  president  of  the  colony,  but  if  the  latter 
were  absent,  the  presence  of  the  assistant  in  the  town  where 
the  recorder  lived  was  needed.3  A  further  modification  of 
the  referendum  was  made  in  1660.  By  the  act  of  that  year, 
three  months  ("fowre  score  and  sixdaies")  were  allowed  for 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  149. 

2  Ibid.,  229.  3  Ibid.,  401. 


I  2  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS. 

the  return  of  the  votes  to  the  recorder.  Instead  of  a  major- 
ity of  each  town,  a  majority  of  all  the  free  inhabitants  of  the 
colony  was  sufficient  to  nullify  a  law,  although  indeed,  any 
one  town  should  be  wholly  silent  on  the  subject.1  No  men- 
tion of  the  referendum  under  the  second  charter  has  been 
found.  Under  that  charter  four  deputies  from  each  of  the 
four  original  towns,  except  Newport,  which  was  still  allowed 
six,  and  two  deputies  from  each  of  the  other  towns,  were 
constituted  a  general  assembly  which  was  to  sit  in  May  and 
October  of  each  year  in  conjunction  with  the  assistants." 
With  the  exception  of  the  years  from  1686  to  1690  the 
assembly  sat  regularly  under  this  charter  until  the  revolu- 
tion. 

§  4.  Connecticut  and  New  Haven.  The  colony  of  Con- 
necticut was  fully  organized  in  1665,  under  authority  of  the 
charter  of  14  Charles  II.3  Before  that  time  there  had  been 
two  separate  governments,  the  one  at  New  Haven,  the  other 
at  Hartford.  In  order,  therefore,  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  their 
development,  it  will  be  necessary  to  trace  the  history  of  each 
part  with  special  reference  to  the  subject  of  popular  election. 

The  first  meeting  of  all  the  "  free  planters"  of  New  Haven 
took  place  on  the  fourth  day  of  the  fourth  month  (June) 
1639,  for  the  purpose  of  "settling  ciuill  Gouernm1  accord- 
ing to  God,  and  about  the  nominatio  of  persons  thatt 
might  be  founde  by  consent  of  all  fittest,  in  all  respects  for 
the  foundaco  work  of  a  church  w(hich)  was  intended  to  be 
gathered  in  Quinipieck."  The  meeting  was  opened  by  "a 
solemn  invocatio  of  the  name  of  God  in  prayer  (for)  the 
presence  and  help  of  his  speritt,  and  grace  in  those  weighty 
businesses."  There  was  considerable  discussion  as  to 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  429. 
'  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  8. 
3  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  5. 


AV  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  ^ 

whether  the  planters  should  give  to  free  burgesses  the  power 
of  making  ordinances,  but  it  was  ultimately  decided  to  do  so. 
The  minutes  of  the  meeting  show  that  this  decision  was 
arrived  at  on  the  authority  of  several  passages  from  the 
Bible — such  as  "  Take  you  wise  men  and  understanding, 
and  known  among  your  tribes  and  I  will  make  them  rulers 
over  you,"1  and  "Thou  shalt  in  anywise  set  him  king  over  thee 
whom  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose ;  one  from  among  thy 
brethren  shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee ;  thou  mayest  not  set 
a  stranger  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother.""  The  model 
followed  in  the  governmental  organization  was  the  liveries  of 
the  city  of  London  which  chose  the  magistrates  and  were 
themselves  elected  by  the  companies.  Accordingly,  the 
planters  of  New  Haven  elected  a  committee  of  eleven  men, 
and  gave  them  power  to  choose  the  seven  pillars  of  the 
theocracy  they  had  decided  to  establish.3  The  seven  pillars 
met  as  a  court  of  election  in  October  of  the  same  year  and 
admitted  upon  oath  several  members  of  "Approved  churches." 
After  reading  a  number  of  passages  from  the  Bible  bear- 
ing on  the  subject  of  an  ideal  ruler,  they  proceeded  to 
the  election  of  a  chief  magistrate  and  four  deputy  magis- 
trates, with  a  marshal  "and  a  "  publique  notary,"  to  hold 
office  for  the  ensuing  year.4  At  this  meeting,  all  members 
of  the  church  were  admitted  to  membership  in  the  general 
court.  In  1643  Stamford  was  admitted  to  a  share  in  the 
government,  and  New  Haven  chose  for  that  town  a  magis- 
trate and  four  assistants.5  Other  towns  were  admitted  later, 
the  franchise  in  them  being  likewise  restricted  to  church 
members.6 

In  1643  the  towns  in  General  Court  assembled  adopted  a  set 

1  Deuteronomy  i.  1 3-. 

2  Deuteronomy  xvii.  15;   also  Exodus  xviii.  21,  and  I  Corinthians  vi.  I  to  7. 
SI  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  11-14.  *  Ibid.,  20. 

W.,  85.  *  Ibid.,  no. 


J4  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

of  "  Fundamental  Orders,"  or  written  constitution,  which 
provided  among  other  matters,  for  the  election  of  a  governor, 
deputy-governor,  and  other  magistrates,  with  a  secretary  and 
a  marshal.1  Commissioners  for  the  United  Colonies  were 
chosen  this  year2  by  the  general  court,  and  after  October, 
1644  by  the  freemen.3  As  has  already  been  noticed,  the  prin- 
ciple of  representation  by  deputies  in  the  making  of  laws 
seems  to  have  been  recognized  at  the  meeting  of  1639. 
Deputies  appear  to  have  been  chosen  semi-annually  after 
May,  1641,*  and  at  first  were  little  more  than  a  jury  to  assist 
the  magistrates.  In  1643  Stamford  sent  two  deputies  to  the 
general  court  at  New  Haven.5  The  fundamental  orders 
passed  in  the  same  year  called  for  a  "  general  court  for  the 
jurisdiction,"  and  to  this  two  deputies  were  sent  from  each 
plantation  in  the  colony.  The  court  was  to  meet  in  April 
and  in  October,  or  oftener  if  called,  and  the  governor,  deputy- 
governor  and  magistrates  sat  with  the  deputies  from  the 
towns.6  There  was.  therefore,  at  New  Haven,  the  general 
court  "for  the  jurisdiction"  as  well  as  a  general  court  for  the 
town  of  New  Haven  at  which  deputies  were  chosen  for  the 
jurisdiction  court.7 

In  the  Hartford  colony,  which  was  Connecticut  proper, 
the  earliest  mention  of  elections  is  found  in  the  Funda- 
mental Orders  of  1638,  which  have  become  famous  as  the 
first  written  constitution  framed  on  the  American  continent. 
It  was  enacted  that  a  governor  and  six  magistrates  should 
be  chosen  annually  by  the  freemen  of  the  jurisdiction.8  A 
deputy-governor  was  also  chosen.9  The  charter  of  14 

1 1  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  112,  191. 

2  Ibid.,  87,  117.  *  Ibid.,  147. 

*/#</.,  51,  58,  69,  78,  85.  »/&*.,  85. 

6  Ibid.,  114.  7  Ibid.,  1 25,  1 29. 

8  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  '  Ibid.,  27. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  !  5 

Charles  II,  which  placed  the  New  Haven  and  the  Hartford 
colonies  under  one  government,  provided  for  the  same  gen- 
eral officers,  together  with  twelve  assistants.1  In  1689  it  was 
ordered  that  a  secretary  and  a  treasurer  should  also  be 
elected.2  Although,  as  is  well  known,  Andros  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  taking  away  the  charter  of  Connecticut,  he,  neverthe- 
less, took  the  government  into  his  hands  in  the  autumn  of 
i68/.3  Upon  his  imprisonment  in  Boston  in  1689  the  old 
officers  took  up  their  duties  again,4  and  a  new  election  was 
held  in  the  spring  of  the  following  year.5  The  Fundamental 
Orders  of  1638  also  provided  that  deputies  should  perform 
all  the  business,  legislative  or  judicial,  of  the  freemen,  except 
the  election  of  colonial  officers.6  If,  however,  a  change  in 
the  constitution  was  proposed,  notice  to  that  effect  must  be 
inserted  in  the  warrants  calling  for  an  election  of  deputies, 
and  those  towns  which  sent  proxies  to  the  general  elections 
were  requested  to  send  in  their  votes  in  a  similar  manner  on 
the  question  of  the  projected  change.7  There  were  two  gen- 
eral courts  each  year,  namely,  in  October  and  in  May8  so  that 
there  was,  accordingly,  a  semi-annual  election  of  deputies  in 
each  town.  Under  the  charter  the  custom  of  sending  dep- 
uties to  the  general  courts  was  continued,  and  they  ulti- 
mately formed  the  lower  house  of  the  legislature.  The  only 
occasions  on  which  officers  of  the  colony  were  elected  by  the 
assembly  were  when  vacancies  were  caused  by  the  death  of 

1  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  5;   also  Session  Laws,  1715,  30. 

2  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  II. 

*  3  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  248. 

*  Ibid.,  250.     For  a  contemporaneous  account  of  the  proceedings  at  this  time 
see  ibid.,  455,  et  seq. 

5  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  22. 

*  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  25.  T  Ibid,  346,  7. 

6  Ibid.,  21. 


1 6  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

persons  in  office.  Thus,  in  1707,*  1724,*  and  again  in  1741,* 
a  governor  was  chosen  by  both  houses  of  the  legislature. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  was  enacted 
that  all  officers  must  have  a  majority  of  votes  in  order  to  be 
elected.  If  this  number  was  not  secured,  the  assembly  had 
the  power  to  choose  the  officers." 

In  all  colonies  south  of  New  England,  as  we  shall  see  in 
due  course,  the  governor  was  appointed  either  by  the  Eng- 
lish crown  or  by  the  proprietors,  who  held  by  charter  or 
grant  from  the  crown.  There  was,  however,  everywhere,  at 
some  time  or  other,  a  legislative  assembly  chosen  by  the 
colonists. 

§  5.  New  York.  While  New  Netherland  remained  under 
Dutch  rule  the  people  had  no  voice  in  the  choice  of  those 
officers  whose  duties  were  more  than  local  in  character. 
The  governor  was  an  appointee  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, and  responsible  solely  to  it ;  though  the  latter  was 
subject  to  a  certain  amount  of  control  from  the  States  Gen- 
eral. That  the  people  desired  the  privflege  of  electing 
their  general  officers,  is  shown  by  a  petition  sent  in  1649  to 
the  States  General  from  the  Nine  Men.  A  request  was 
made  in  this  document  for  a  suitable  system  of  govern- 
ment, and  it  was  accompanied  by  a  sketch  of  the  methods  of 
written  proxies  used  by  the  New  England  colonies  in  select- 
ing their  governors.0  On  the  other  hand,  a  letter  sent  two 
years  later  by  the  magistrates  of  Gravesend  to  the  directors 
at  Amsterdam,  stated  that  it  would  involve  "ruin  and  de- 
struction" to  frequently  change  the  government  by  allowing 
the  people  to  elect  the  governor,  partly  on  account  of  the 
numerous  factions,  and  partly  because  there  were  no  persons 

1  5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  38.         2  6  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  484. 
3  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  416.       4  Ibid.,  453. 

5  i  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  266 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  ij 

in  the  province  capable  of  filling  the  office.1  Nor  did  the 
Dutch  colonists  possess  any  voice  in  the  making  of  laws. 
There  was  no  regular  representative  assembly,  although  we 
find  that  there  were  several  emergencies  when  the  advice  of 
the  people  was  asked  by  the  governors.  Thus  in  1641  Gov- 
ernor Kieft  requested  the  commonalty  to  elect  a  board  of 
twelve  men  to  advise  him.  But  he  dissolved  the  board  as 
soon  as  they  failed  to  comply  with  his  wishes.2 

Two  years  later  Kieft  again  asked  the  commonalty  to 
elect  a  board.  But  they  preferred  not  to  do  so  and  re- 
quested the  Governor  and  his  council  to  make  the  selec- 
tion, reserving  to  themselves,  however,  the  right  to  reject 
any  person  they  disliked.  As  a  result  of  this  action,  the 
"  Eight"  were  chosen,  and  for  a  time  they  sat  at  intervals  and 
sent  complaints  to  the  Amsterdam  chamber  of  the  West 
India  Company.3  The  Eight  finally  met  with  the  fate  of  the 
Twelve.  A  third  board,  this  time  consisting  of  nine  men,  was 
formed  in  1647  under  Governor  Stuyvesant.  The  people  of 
New  Amsterdam  elected  eighteen  persons  and  from  these 
the  director  and  his  council  selected  the  members  of  the 
board.  As  this  body  was  self-renewing,  popular  election 
ceased  after  the  first  eighteen  names  were  submitted  to  the 
governor.  A  charter  was  granted  to  the  Nine,  but  their  ex- 
istence was  shortlived.*  In  1653  there  was  more  than  the 
usual  amount  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  colony  at  the  arbitrary 
rule  of  the  governor,  chiefly,  perhaps,  on  account  of  Indian 
troubles.  Delegates  from  several  of  the  villages  met  at 
Flushing,  and  a  meeting  was  held  in  the  city  hall  of  New 
Amsterdam.  Finally,  Governor  Stuyvesant  sent  out  writs  for 

1  2  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  155. 

2  I  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  242,  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  283  et  seq  ;  \  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  191,  213. 

4  2  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  38,  et  seq. 


I  8  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

the  election  of  delegates  to  an  assembly  at  New  Amsterdam. 
When  the  delegates  met  on  December  loth,  eight  towns 
were  represented,  and  on  the  following  day  a  lengthy  re- 
monstrance was  drawn  up  for  transmission  to  the  States 
General.1  This  assembly  like  the  others,  had  a  short  exist- 
ence. 

In  1664,  however,  when  the  English  were  threatening  im- 
mediate invasion  and  the  affairs  of  New  Netherland  were  in 
a  precarious  condition,  Governor  Stuyvesant,  in  the  extrem- 
ity of  the  danger,  determined  to  call  a  representative 
assembly — (eene  Laenddagli) .  He  therefore,  at  the  request 
of  the  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  of  New  Amsterdam,  sent 
out  writs  to  all  the  towns  under  his  rule,  calling  on  them  to 
elect  deputies  by  a  plurality  of  votes.  Two  representatives 
from  each  town  were  chosen  and  composed  the  assembly 
which  met  in  the  city  hall  of  New  Amsterdam  on  the  tenth 
day  of  April.2  This  was  the  last  assembly  convoked  by  a 
Dutch  Director,  for  in  August  of  the  same  year  New 
Amsterdam  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  English. 

The  patent  of  Charles  II.,  under  date  of  March,  1664,  by 
virtue  of  which  the  Duke  of  York  acquired  his  title  to  New 
York,  granted  the  fullest  powers  of  government.3  Soon  after 
the  conquest  of  the  territory,  Col.  Nicolls,  who  had  been 
appointed  to  his  position  as  governor  by  the  Duke  of  York, 
addressed  a  letter  to  the  people  of  Long  Island,  calling  on 
them  to  elect  "  Deputyes  chosen  by  the  major  part  of  the 

1  2  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  239,  et  seq. 

2  I  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  728;   2  O'Callaghan,  History 
of  New  Netherland,  505.     The  latter  gives  a  copy  of  the  certificate  of  election  for 
the  deputies  from  Wiltwyck.     This  is  signed  by  a  number  of  inhabitants,  and 
states,  among  other  matters,  that  the  election  was  held  on  March  3 1st  by  the  sheriff 
and  commissaries  at  the  summons  of  the  Director  General  and  Council  of  New 
Netherland. 

8  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  652;  Learning  and  Spicer, 
Grants  and  Concessions,  3.. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  IOy 

freemen  only,  which  is  to  bee  understood,  of  all  Persons  rated 
according  to  their  estates,  whether  English  or  Dutch."  Four 
days  notice  of  the  election  was  to  be  given  and  each  town 
was  to  send  two  deputies  to  meet  the  governor  at  Hampstead 
in  the  latter  part  of  February  1 664-5  -1  This  assembly  was 
not  as  representative  as  the  Lantag  of  Stuyvesant,  for  only 
Long  Island  towns  were  summoned  or  sent  delegates. 
When  the  convention  came  together  it  adopted  the  code 
known  as  the  Duke's  Laws.  The  delegates  thought  at  first 
that  they  were  to  organize  a  government  even  more  liberal 
than  that  existing  in  the  Puritan  colonies,  with  provision  that 
general  officers  should  be  elected  by  the  votes  of  the  freemen ; 
but  when  Governor  Nicolls  showed  that  he  was  authorized 
to  appoint  all  officers  they  submitted  and  were  -dissolved." 

The  government  constituted  by  the  Duke's  Laws  lasted 
practically  till  1691.  Only  local  officers  were  elected  under 
this  code.  There  sat  during  this  period  a  limited  legislature, 
known  as  the  court  of  assizes,  whose  members  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor,  but  they  merely  registered  the 
decrees  of  the  governor's  council  and  had  no  more  power 
than  a  French  lit  de  justice?  During  the  second  Dutch 
occupation  in  1673  and  1674  there  was  a  provisional  gov- 
ernment, and  only  local  officers  were  elected  by  the  people.4 

When  New  York  was  again  surrendered  to  the  English 
crown  in  1674,  the  Duke  of  York  obtained  a  fresh  charter, 
similar  to  his  first.  A  desire  for  a  popular  assembly  soon 
sprang  up,  and  in  1680  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  Duke 

1  Introduction  to  Journal  of  New  York  Legislative  Council,  Albany,  1861,  iv. 

*  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  Slate  of  New  York,  69 ;  Introduction  to  Journal 
of  New  York  Legislative  Cdttncil,  v,  vi. 

3  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  71;   Introduction  to  Journal 
of  New  York  Legislative  Council,  vi. 

4  2  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  574,  579,  680,  etc. 

5  Learning  and  Spicer,  41. 


2Q  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

by  the  court  of  assizes,  asking  that  the  freeholders  should 
be  allowed  to  elect  a  legislature.1  In  March,  1681-2  James 
wrote  that  he  would  grant  the  request,  and  the  instructions 
of  Governor  Dongan  authorized  him  to  call  such  an  as- 
sembly,2 by  sending  out  not  more  than  eighteen  writs  thirty 
days  before  the  date  chosen  for  the  meeting  of  the  legisla- 
ture. Dongan  reached  New  York  in  August,  1683,  and  soon 
issued  writs  calling  an  assembly  to  meet  on  October  I7th. 
The  most  important  act  passed  by  this  body  was  the  Charter 
of  Liberties  and  Privileges.  It  declared  that  the 

"  Supreme  legislative  authority  under  his  Majesty  and  Royall  High- 
nesse,  James,  Duke  of  York,  Albany,  etc.,  shall  forever  bee  and 
reside  in  a  Governor,  Councell  and  the  People  met  a  general 
assembly.  .  .  That  every  freeholder  within  this  province,  and  every 
freeman  in  any  corporation  shall  have  his  free  choice  and  vote  in 
the  Electing  of  representatives,  without  any  manner  of  constraint  or 
imposition,  and  that  in  all  elections  the  Majority  of  voices  shall 
carry  itt,  and  by  {freeholders  is  understood  every  one  who  is  so 
understood  according  to  the  Laws  of  England." 

The  charter  then  proceeded  to  apportion  the  seats  in  the 
assembly  among  the  various  counties.3  The  representatives 
together  with  the  governor  and  council  were  declared  to  be 
"  forever  the  supreme  and  only  legislative  power,  under  his 
Royall  Highnesse,  of  the  said  province." 

The  charter  was  presented  to  the  duke  for  his  approval, 
and  seems  to  have  been  amended  and  affirmed,  and  then 
ordered  sent  to  New  York,  as  ratified.4  This  order  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  carried  into  effect,  for  at  a  meeting  of  the 

1  2  Brodhead,  History  of  Ike  State  of  New  York,  Appendix,  658. 

2  1682-3,  3  ^ew  ^ork  Colonial  Documents,  317,  330. 

3  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  659,  where  the  charter  is  given 
in  full. 

*  1684,  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  348;  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  416,  note. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2  I 

Privy  Council  in  March,  1684—5,  very  soon  after  James  be- 
came King  and  New  York  a  royal  province,  it  was  noted  that 
his  majesty  did  not  "  think  fit  to  confirm  it."1  In  a  report  on 
the  charter  presented  at  this  meeting  of  the  Privy  Council 
objections  were  made  to  the  phrase  "  the  People,"  because 
such  words  "  are  not  used  in  any  other  constitution  in 
America ;  But  only  the  words  General  Assembly. "2  Don- 
gan's  first  assembly  was  dissolved  in  August,  1685,  and 
he  had  called  another,  when  orders  arrived  from  the  crown 
vesting  all  legislative  authority  in  the  governor  and-  his 
council.3  Andros  took  New  York,  as  well  as  all  New  Eng- 
land, under  his  rule,  and  in  accordance  with  his  instruc- 
tions, as  already  explained,4  no  assemblies  were  called. 
After  Andros'  imprisonment  Lieutenant-Governor  Leisler 
usurped  the  government  of  New  York  and  called  an  assem- 
bly in  June,  i689.5  He  was  superseded  and  executed  by 
authority  of  Governor  Sloughter,  who  reached  America  in 
March,  1691,  with  a  commission  from  William  and  Mary 
authorizing  him  to  call  an  assembly.6  Within  a  month  after 
his  arrival  an  assembly  met  and  passed  a  modified  form  of 
the  Charter  of  Liberties  and  Privileges  which  had  been 
vetoed  by  King  James  in  1684-5.'  From  this  time  as- 
semblies were  called  at  intervals  until  the  royal  government 
ceased.  Representatives  were  elected  by  the  residents  of 
the  manors,  cities  and  counties,  and  the  privilege  of  voting 
is  described  as  the  subject's  "chiefest  Birth  Right."8 

1  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  357.  '*  Ibid.,  357. 

3  Ibid.,  370.  *  Ibid.,  544.     See  ante,  p.  5.  5  Ibid.,  655. 

6  3  Nerv  York  Colonial  Documents,  624;   Introduction  to  Journal  of  the  New 
York  Legislative  Council,  xxiv,  xxv. 

7  Bradford,  Laws,  ed.  1710, 1 ;  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  Stateof  New  York,  642. 

8  1 1  Will.  III.,  chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Larvs,  28.     During  the  later  colonial 
period  members  were  returned  by  the  borough  of  Westchester  and  by  the  town 
of  Schenectady.     I  Jones,  History  of  New  York,  ed.  1879,  506. 


2  2  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

§  6.  New  Jersey.  The  territory  included  in  the  present 
state  of  New  Jersey  was  originally  under  the  rule  of 
the  Director  General  and  Council  of  New  Netherland,  and  it 
also  formed  a  portion  of  the  country  granted  to  James,  Duke 
of  York,  by  the  patent  of  1664.*  By  indentures  of  lease 
and  release  dated  respectively  June  23rd  and  June  24th,  1664, 
the  proprietor  conveyed  all  his  rights  in  the  territory  now 
known  as  New  Jersey  to  John,  Lord  Berkeley,  and  Sir 
George  Carteret.2  The  country  was  to  be  settled  under  the 
name  of  Nova  Caesarea.  The  lords  proprietors,  in  order  to 
encourage  settlement  in  their  newly  acquired  province,  issued, 
on  .February  loth,  1664—5,  a  "Concession  and  Agreement." 
By  virtue  of  this  constitution,  all  persons  who  became  subjects 
of  the  King  of  England,  and  who  swore  fidelity  to  the  Lords 
Proprietors  should  be  admitted  as  freemen  of  the  colony. 
Those  inhabitants  who  were  either  freemen  or  chief  agents  to 
others  were  authorized  to  choose  twelve  representatives  for  a 
general  assembly,  to  be  summoned  by  writs  issued  as  soon  as 
Philip  Carteret,  who  had  been  appointed  governor,  reached 
the  province.3  Carteret  came  to  America  in  the  latter  part  of 
1665,*  but  did  not  issue  a  proclamation  calling  an  assembly 
till  April,  i668.5  This  body  was  elected  by  the  freeholders 
and  met  in  Elizabeth  in  May  of  that  year,  and  after  trans- 
acting some  business  adjourned  till  the  following  November.6 
No  further  assemblies  were  called  by  the  governor,  although 
in  1672  there  was  great  discontent  in  the  province,  and 
some  of  the  settlers  elected  delegates  to  an  illegal  assembly 
held  at  Elizabeth.  This  pretended  to  act  for  the  whole 
province,  and  chose  as  governor  an  illegitimate  son  of 

1  I  Neiv  Jersey  Archives,  3.  ~  Ibid.,  8,  10. 

3  Ibid.,  30;  Leaniing  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  12. 

4  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  48.  5  Ibid.,  56. 
6  Ibid.,  56;  Learning  and  Spicer,  81,  85. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2$ 

Sir  George  Carteret.1  In  1673,  New  Jersey  was  recon- 
quered by  the  Dutch  and  placed,  with  New  York,  under  a 
provisional  government.2 

When  peace  was  restored,  the  Duke  of  York  received 
from  the  crown,  under  date  of  June  29th,  1674,  a  new 
grant.3  This  included  New  Jersey  and  all  the  other  terri- 
tory which  had  been  bestowed  on  him  ten  years  before. 
Two  days  later,  July  ist,  Major  Andros  was  commissioned 
governor  of  all  the  Duke's  territories  in  America.  In  spite  of 
this,  on  the  28th  and  29th  of  the  same  month  (July),  in- 
dentures of  lease  and  release  were  executed  by  the  Duke 
conveying  East  Jersey  to  Sir  George  Carteret/  The  interest 
of  Lord  Berkeley  in  the  western  half  of  New  Jersey  had  been 
conveyed  by  deed  of  bargain  and  sale  to  a  certain  John 
Fenwick,  in  trust  for  Edward  Byllinge.  Byllinge  failed  and 
assigned  his  interest  to  William  Penn  and  two  associates 
as  trustees.  On  July  1st,  1676,  Sir  George  Carteret,  Byllinge 
and  the  trustees  executed  the  famous  Quintipartite  Deed,5  by 
which  their  several  claims  were  satisfied  and  New  Jersey 
separated  into  two  parts,  known  thereafter  as  East  Jersey 
and  West  Jersey.  The  government  of  East  Jersey  had  al- 
ready been  for  some  time  in  the  hands  of-  Carteret's  repre- 
sentatives. He  had  issued  a  charter  confirming  the  con- 
cession and  agreement  promulgated  before  the  Dutch  con- 
quest,6 and  an  assembly,  elected  by  the  freeholders,  had  met 
under  his  authority  in  the  month  of  November,  1674,'  and 
thereafter.  In  1680,  however,  Governor  Andros  under  claim 

I  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  66,  67.     Reference  is  made  to 
the  second  edition  of  this  work. 

I 1  New  Jersey  Archives,  -1 21,  125,  et  seq.  'Learning  and  Spicer,  41. 
*  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  160,  161 ;   Learning  and  Spicer,  46. 

5  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  205;   Learning  and  Spicer,  6l. 

6  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  167,  ft  seq.;   Learning  and  Spicer,  50,  58. 

7  Learning  and  Spicer,  93,  et  seq. 


24 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


of  royal  authority  exercised  governmental  powers  in  East 
Jersey;1  but  the  death  of  Carteret  and  the  subsequent  release 
from  the  Duke  of  York  to  his  heirs,  again  restored  the  pro- 
vince to  the  Carteret  family.2  In  1682  a  number  of  convey- 
ances were  executed,  which  resulted  in  transferring  East 
Jersey  from  the  trustees  under  Carteret's  will  to  twelve  pro- 
prietors. These  in  turn  divided  their  shares  with  twelve 
others,  and  the  Duke  of  York  confirmed  the  whole  twenty- 
four  in  their  ownership.3 

The  twenty-four  proprietors  issued  in  1683  an  elaborate 
instrument,  known  as  the  "Fundamental  Constitutions  of 
East  Jersey."*  Sixteen  of  the  proprietors  were  to  elect  the 
governor  from  nominations  made  by  each  of  the  twenty-four. 
The  power  of  making  laws  was  placed  in  a  great  council, 
consisting  of  the  proprietors  or  their  proxies  and  a  hundred 
and  forty-four  persons  elected  by  the  freemen.  On  account 
of  the  small  number  of  towns  in  the  province,  however,  there 
were  to  be  but  ninety-six  delegates  at  first,  twenty-four  of 
whom  came  from  each  of  the  eight  towns  and  forty-eight 
from  the  country  at  large.  A  third  of  this  number  was  to 
go  out  of  office  and  be  renewed  by  popular  election  each 
year.  A  common  council  was  to  be  formed  by  adding  twelve 
freemen,  chosen  by  ballot  from  the  members  of  the  great 
council,  to  the  proprietors  or  their  proxies.  All  officers  ex- 
cept magistrates  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  council  and  the 
governor.  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  constitution  was  ever 
put  into  operation. 

The  proprietors  had  appointed  a  governor  for  life  'J  and 
had  given  him  the  privilege  of  remaining  at  home  and  ruling 
his  province  by  a  deputy.  The  latter  convoked  the  first  as- 

1  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  92. 

2 1  New  Jersey  Archives,  337.  'Learning  and  Spicer.  73,  141. 

*  Ibid.,  153;    I  New  Jersey  Archives,  395.         s  Learning  and  Spicer,  166. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2C 

sembly  under  the  proprietors  at  Elizabeth  in  March  1682-3.' 
When  Andros  was  carrying  out  the  wishes  of  James  II.  by  re- 
ducing the  American  colonies  to  submission,  he  siezed  East 
Jersey.2  Being  threatened  with  a  writ  of  quo  warranto,  the  pro- 
prietors had  caused  a  surrender  to  be  drawn  up,  but  never  exe- 
cuted it;8  they,  however,  abandoned  their  property  till  1692.* 
After  that  year  assemblies  were  elected  annually  until  i698.5 
The  proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  who  as  a  matter  of  fact 
were  mostly  Quakers,  drew  up,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
freeholders  and  inhabitants  of  their  dominions,  a  long  series 
of  Concessions  and  Agreements.6  These  were  supposed 
to  form  a  complete  constitution ;  but  in  default  of  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  settlers  the  country  was  to  be  governed 
for  the  time  being  by  a  number  of  commissioners  appointed 
by  the  proprietors.  The  constitution  was  to  go  into  effect 
in  March,  1680,  at  which  time  the  proprietors,  freeholders 
and  inhabitants  resident  in  the  province  were  to  meet  and 
elect  "Ten  honest  and  able  Men  fit  for  Gouernment,  to  offici- 
ate and  execute  the  Place  of  Commissioners  Hk>r  the  Year 
Ensuing."7  The  thirty-second  chapter  of  the  concessions 
provided  that  where  "divisions  or  tribes  or  other  such  like 
distinctions  are  made  "  an  election  should  be  held  annually  in 
each  of  the  one  hundred  proprieties  or  parts  for  a  freeholder 
or  proprietor  from  each,  to  be  deputy,  trustee  or  represen- 
tative for  the  "Benefit,  Service  and  Behoof"  of  the  people 
of  the  province  in  a  "  General  and  Supream  Assembly." 
This  body  was  to  choose  ten  commissioners  to  adminster  the 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  227. 

*\Vhitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  147,  159. 

3  2  New  Jersey  Archives,  26. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  605.  5 Ibid.,  312,  380. 

6  Ibid.,  382-409;   New  Jersey  Archives,  241-270. 

7  Learning  and  Spicer,  385. 


2  6  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

affairs  of  the  province  while  the  General  Assembly  was  not 
in  session.1  • 

In  August,  1680,  the  Duke  of  York  made  another  grant 
of  the  soil  to  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey,2  and  in  the  fall 
of  the  following  year  the  deputy-governor  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed in  England  convoked  the  first  legislature.  Ten  fund- 
amental laws  were  passed,  providing  among  other  things  for 
a  general  assembly  to  be  elected  yearly  by  the  free  people 
of  the  province.  This  elected  body  was  to  choose  all  officers 
of  state.3  The  members  of  the  next  assembly,  which  met  at 
Burlington  in  May,  1682,  had  been  returned  by  the  sheriff 
from  the  province  as  a  whole.4  To  do  away  with  this,  a 
statute  was  passed,  requiring  each  of  the  ten  proprieties  to 
choose  "  their  representatives  where  they  are  peopled."  As 
new  proprieties  were  settled  in  the  future,  each  tenth  was  to 
choose  ten  representatives.  The  members  of  the  next  as- 
sembly were  returned  by  tenths,  ten  sitting  for  each  tenth.5 
The  next  year  (1683)  the  assembly  debated  the  question, 
and  decided  that  it  had  power  to  elect  a  governor.  This  was 
done  by  construing  liberally  the  clause  of  the  constitution 
permitting  changes  to  be  made  by  six-sevenths  of  the  peo- 
ple. They  accordingly  chose  a  governor  "  nemine  contra- 
dicente,  saue  only  one  member  was  dubious  therein."6  Free- 
men were  allowed  by  an  act  of  this  year  to  attend  the  first 
meeting  of  each  assembly.7  From  1685  to  1692,  no  assem- 
blies were  elected,  for  though  no  quo  warranto  was  sought 
against  New  Jersey,  the  proprietors  of  both  provinces  joined 
in  the  proposd  surrender.8 

1  Chap.  38,  Learning  and  Spicer,  385. 

2  Learning  and  Spicer,  412.  3  Ibid.,  423. 
4  Ibid.,  442.  *  Ibid.,  455. 
6 Ibid.,  471.  ''Ibid.,  482. 

8  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  159;   2  New  Jersey  Archives, 
26.     The  elaborate  system  of  proprieties  and  tenths  seems  to  have  been  abro- 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2J 

During  the  later  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  there 
was  more  or  less  disorder  in  both  of  the  provinces,  and 
the  proprietors  of  East  and  West  Jersey  being  for  the  most 
part  the  same,  a  memorial  was  addressed  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade  and  also  to  the  Lords  Justices  of  England,  asking 
that  East  Jersey  be  annexed  to  New  York.1  The  Lords  of 
Trade  approved  of  the  suggestion,  but  would  not  give  New 
Jersey  as  many  representatives  as  were  desired :  one-sixth 
of  the  whole  New  York  assembly  was  suggested  as  the 
proper  proportion  for  each  of  the  Jersey  provinces.2  At 
last,  in  1701,  both  sets  of  proprietors  addressed  a  me- 
morial to  the  crown,  requesting  that  an  assembly  be  elected 
annually  and  that  it  sit  alternately  in  Perth  Amboy  and  Bur- 
lington, two  members  being  elected  from  each  of  these  towns 
by  the  inhabitants,  who  were  householders,  and  sixteen  being 
chosen  by  the  freeholders  of  each  province.3  The  Board  of 
Trade  reported  in  favor  of  a  form  of  government  consisting 
of  a  governor,  council  and  assembfy.4  A  deed  of  surrender 
was  executed  in  April,  1702,  and  accepted  by  the  Queen.5 
Lord  Cornbury  was  appointed  the  first  royal  governor,  and 
his  commission6  and  instructions7  required  him  to  call  an 
assembly  on  the  lines  suggested  by  the  proprietors,  except 
that  there  were  to  be  but  ten  members  from  each  half  and 
only  twenty-four  in  all.  In  the  autumn  of  1703  the  first 
royal  legislature  under  this  authority  was  elected.8  By  a 

gated  by  the  establishment  of  counties,  (Laws,  1694,  chap.  II,  Learning  and 
Spicer,  533,)  Burlington  being  given  twenty  members,  Gloucester  twenty,  Salem 
ten,  and  Cape  May  five.  Each  of  the  first  two  counties  contained  two  tenths,  and 
the  third  only  one.  In  1699  (chap.  3,  Learning  and  Spicer,  567),  the  representa- 
tion of  each  county  was  reduced  by  one-half;  but  the  old  number  was  restored  two 
years  later  (Learning  and  Spicer,  581). 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  588,  591.  2  Ibid.,  594. 

*  Ibid.,  599.  *  Ibid.,  603. 

5  Ibid.,  609.  8  Ibid.,  647. 

7  Art.  14,  Ibid.,  623. 

8  I  Smith,  History  of  New  yersey,  275;  Allinson's  Laws,  I. 


28  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

statute  of  1767  new  assemblies  were  to  be  elected  at  least 
once  in  seven  years.1 

§  7.  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware.  The  country  from 
which  the  provinces  of  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  were 
formed  was  conquered  by  the  Dutch  from  the  Swedes,  and 
a  portion  of  it  came  under  the  rule  of  the  Duke  of  York,  and 
the  code  known  as  the  Duke's  Laws  probably  had  effect 
after  1676.  Charles  II.  by  charter  of  1681  granted  to  William 
Penn  a  large  tract  of  land  between  Maryland  and  the  Duke  of 
York's  territory.  The  fourth  section  of  the  royal  charter 
gave  the  proprietor  power  to  make  laws  "  with  the  advice, 
assent  and  approbation  of  the  freemen  of  the  said  country  or 
the  greater  part  of  them  or  their  delegates  or  deputies, 
whom,  for  the  enacting  of  the  said  laws,"  Penn  was  author- 
ized to  assemble.2  By  a  deed  from  the  Duke  of  York  in 
August,  1682,  Penn  was  enfeoffed  with  the  country  lying 
within  a  radius  of  twelve  miles  from  New  Castle,  while 
another  instrument  gave  him  additional  land  to  the  south  of 
that  town.3 

In  April  of  the  last  mentioned  year  Penn  drew  up  and 
promulgated  a  "Frame  of  Government."  This  provided 
that  laws  should  be  made  by  the  governor  and  freemen. 
The  latter  were  to  meet  in  the  month  of  February,  1682—3, 
and  elect  seventy-two  persons  of  most  note  for  their  "wis- 
dom, virtue  and  ability,"  to  form  the  provincial  council. 
One  third  of  this  number  was  to  go  out  of  office  every 
year,  and  their  seats  were  to  be  filled  by  vote  of  the  free- 
men. The  first  assembly  was  to  consist  of  all  the  freemen, 
but  thereafter  it  was  to  be  representative.  The  freemen 
were  at  first  to  return  two  hundred  members,  though,  as 

1  8  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws,  306,  307. 
- 1  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  19. 
3  Laws,  Adams  ed.,  New  Castle,  1797,  i. 


7.V  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  29 

the  country  increased  in  population,  the  number  of  assem- 
blymen might  be  increased  to  five  hundred.1  The  "  Laws 
agreed  upon  in  England  "  at  this  time  fixed  the  qualifica- 
tions to  be  possessed  by  freemen,2  and  Chalmers  in  his 
Political  Annals?  says  that  Penn  derived  suggestions  in 
reference  to  this  matter  from  Harrington's  Oceana.  The 
proprietor  reached  America  in  the  latter  part  of  October, 
1682,  and  convoked  at  Chester  an  assembly  of  as  many 
freemen  as  saw  fit  to  appear.  It  met  on  the  fourth  day  of 
December.4  Freemen  attended  not  only  from  Pennsylvania 
but  from  the  "  territories "  recently  granted  to  the  pro- 
prietor by  the  Duke  of  York,  and  which  were  now  an- 
nexed to  the  province  by  legislative  action.  An  act  of 
settlement  was  passed  at  this  meeting,  and  from  this  statute 
we  find  that  the  freemen  had  been  summoned  by  writs 
issued  by  the  Proprietary  to  the  sheriffs  of  each  of  the 
six  counties  (three  in  the  "  province "  and  three  in  the 
"territories"  as  the  Delaware  country  was  called),  and 
requested  to  elect  twelve  persons  from  each  county  to  form 
the  first  provincial  council.  The  freemen  had  been  re- 
quested to  attend  the  assembly  in  person ;  but,  the  act  goes 
on  to  declare,  "  the  Fewness  of  the  People,  their  inability  in 
Estate  and  Unskilfulness  in  Matters  of  Government"  would 
render  impracticable  so  large  an  assembly  as  had  been 
provided  for.  Therefore,  the  statute  enacts,  that,  of  the 
twelve  persons  returned  by  each  county,  three  should  serve 
in  the  provincial  council,  and  nine  in  the  assembly,  while 
the  frame  of  government  was  declared  to  be  modified  in  this 
particular.0 

1  Articles  I,  2,  14,  16;    I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  133,  et  seq. 

*  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37;   Laws,  ed.  Harrisburg,  1879,  99. 

s  Political  Annals,  642. 

4  Chalmers,  Political  Annals,  645;    I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  206. 

s  Golden,  History  of  the  Five  Nations,  pt.  ii.,  245;   I  Votes,  Assembly,  1752,  i. 


30  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

This  meeting  having  been  preliminary,  Penn  called  a 
regular  assembly  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  the  following 
March.1  A  new  charter  or  frame  of  government  was  passed 
by  this  body,  and  approved  by  Penn.  It  incorporated 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  settlement  already  given,  except 
that  each  county  was  allowed  but  six  assemblymen  instead 
of  nine.2  One-third  of  the  council,  that  is,  one  member  from 
each  county,  was  to  go  out  of  office  each  year. 

Except  in  1684*  and  in  .1690,*  when  the  assembly  sat  in 
Newcastle,  legislatures  met  every  year  in  Philadelphia,  until 
1693  when  Penn's  government  was  taken  away  by  the  crown 
and  given  to  Governor  Fletcher  of  New  York.  The  com- 
mission of  the  latter  empowered  him  to  call  an  assembly 
elected  by  freeholders  in  the  same  way  as  the  New  York 
body.5  He  did  so  in  1693,"  but  in  the  following  year  Penn's 
government  was  restored  to  him  by  letters  patent  from  Wil- 
liam and  Mary.7  Penn  appointed  William  Markham  gov- 
ernor, and  the  latter  caused  legislatures  to  be  elected  in 
September  1695  and  again  in  i696.8  The  body  last  men- 
tioned enacted  a  new  frame  of  government  which  reduced 
the  membership  of  the  council  from  three  to  two  for  each 
county,  making  in  all  but  twelve.  The  total  number  of  as- 
semblymen was  likewise  reduced  from  thirty-six  to  twenty- 
four.9  This  frame  continued  to  be  the  constitution  of  the  pro- 
vince till  1701,  when  Penn,  just  beiore  his  final  departure  for 
England,  granted- the  Charter  of  Privileges,  which  remained 
in  force  down  to  the  revolution.  This  charter  provided  for 
an  assembly  to  be  annually  elected  by  the  freemen,  and  to 

1 1  Votes,  Assembly,  7.  2  r  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,^. 

3  I   Votes,  24.  *  Ibid.,  56. 

5  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  378.     6  Ibid.,  382. 
7  Ibid.,  403.  8  Ibid.,  405,  et  seq. 

9 1  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  49. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  3  i 

meet  on  the  1 4th  of  October  of  each  year.1  By  another  charter 
a  council  of  state  was  instituted,  and  the  governor  was  given 
power  to  fill  vacancies,  so  that  the  assembly  was  now  the 
only  legislative  body  whose  members  were  chosen  by  the 
votes  of  the  people." 

Except  on  the  two  occasions  already  mentioned,  the  in- 
habitants of  the  "  territories  "  had  never  favored  the  sending 
of  representatives  to  the  legislature  which  sat  at  Phila- 
delphia. In  1699  New  Castle  defied  the  writ  sent  out 
by  the  governor,  and  refused  to  elect  assemblymen.  In 
consequence  of  this  action  a  law  was  passed  imposing  a 
fine  of  ;£ioo  on  counties  which  were  delinquent  in  sending  re- 
presentatives, and  providing  that  the  members  from  those 
counties  holding  elections  should  act  for  all.3  The  Charter 
of  Privileges  allowed  two-thirds  of  the  counties  to  act  for  all, 
in  such  a  contingency.4  Penn,  fearing  that  there  might  at 
some  time  be  trouble  on  this  point,  inserted  a  clause  in  the 
Charter  of  Privileges  giving  the  province  and  the  territories 
power  to  hold  separate  legislatures,  if  they  saw  fit.  In  that 
case,  each  county  in  Pennsylvania  was  to  be  allowed  eight 
members  and  the  city  of  Philadelphia  two.  The  Delaware 
counties  could  have  as  many  delegates  to  their  assembly  as 
they  saw  fit,  and  both  legislatures,  if  separated,  were  to  have 
the  same  power  as  if  they  had  remained  together.6 

The  proprietor  had  scarcely  left  America  when  a  dispute 
broke  out,  and  the  territories  refused  to  send  delegates  to  the 
Philadelphia  assembly,  and  instead  held  one  of  their  own  in 
October,  1700.*  In  1703  the  separation  permitted  tjy  the 
charter  was  made,  and  from  that  time  there  were  two  distinct 
legislatures,  one  sitting  at  New  Castle  for  the  government  of 

1 1  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444.  *  Ibid.,  451,  note. 

3  I  Votes,  Assembly,  xiii. 

4  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444.  *>  Ibid.,  ^<\, 
6 Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  Delaware  Laws,  1752,  I. 


3  2  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

New  Castle,  Kent  and  Sussex  upon  Delaware,  and  the  other  at 
Philadelphia  for  the  province  of  Pennsylvania.  Both  remained 
under  the  proprietorship  of  Penn  and  the  same  governor  acted 
for  both.  The  Charter  of  Privileges  was  the  constitution  in 
both  governments,  and  we  shall  see  that  the  legislation  of  the 
two  in  regard  to  the  management  of  elections  was  almost 
precisely  identical.1  Penn  expressed  a  willingness  to  sur- 
render the  provinces  to  the  crown  in  171 2,  but  on  account  of 
a  fit  of  apoplexy  he  was  unable  to  execute  the  necessary 
instruments."  He  died  in  1718,  leaving  his  province  to  three 
English  noblemen  to  be  by  them  held  in  trust  and  disposed 
of  for  the  benefit  of  his  heirs.3  After  nine  years  of  litiga- 
tion on  the  subject  of  this  bequest  it  was  decided  that  the 
grant  was  void,  and  the  government,  therefore,  descended  to 
his  heirs,  who  administered  it  either  in  person  or  by  deputy, 
until  independence  was  declared.4 

Besides  the  members  of  the  legislature  as  already  ex- 
plained, the  frame  of  government  drawn  up  in  the  early  part 
of  1683  provided  for  the- election  by  the  freemen  of  a  double 
number  of  sheriffs,  justices  and  coroners.  The  persons 
chosen  were  in  each  case  to  be  presented  to  the  governor 
and  he  could  grant  a  commission  to  the  one  he  preferred. 
If  within  three  days  he  took  no  action,  the  person  first 
named  on  the  return  received  the  office.5  The  third  para- 
graph of  the  Charter  of  Privileges  of  1701  provided  in  like 
manner,  for  the  election  of  a  double  number  of  sheriffs  and 
coroners.6  The  idea  of  giving  the  governor  a  partial  check 
on  the  election  of  certain  officers,  by  compelling  the  electors 
to  chose  one  or  more  alternates  was  undoubtedly  borrowed 

1  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  454. 

2  2  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  57.  3  Ibid.,  105. 
'Gordon,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  178. 

5  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  42;   Section  16  of  Frame, 

6  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444. 


'IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


33 


from  Holland,  where  it  had  been  for  many  years  practiced 
in  the  choice  of  Burgomasters  and  Schepens,1  and,  as  we 
shall  see,  it  was  introduced  in  New  Netherlands8 

§  8.  Maryland.  Maryland  was  settled  under  a  charter 
granted  by  Charles  I.  to  Lord  Baltimore  in  1632.  The 
proprietor  was  given  the  power  of  making  laws  with  consent 
of  the  freeholders3  or  freemen.4  The  first  legislative  as- 
sembly under  this  grant  was  held  at  St.  Mary's  on  Febru- 
ary 1 6th,  1634—5,  but  all  records  of  its  proceedings  have 
been  lost.5  Probably  all  the  freemen  attended.  The 
second  assembly  was  called  for  the  early  part  of  i637~8.6 
Certain  gentlemen  were  summoned  to  this  meeting  by 
writs  specially 'addressed  to  them,  and  all  freemen  were 
ordered  to  attend  in  person  or  by  proxy.  For  the  latter 
purpose  the  freemen  were  permitted  to  assemble  in  their 
hundreds  and  elect  "  one,  two  or  more  able  and  suffic- 
ient men"  to  be  "the  deputies  or  burgesses  for  the  said 
freemen,  in  their  name  and  steed  to  advise  and  consult  in 
the  same  manner  as  burgesses  from  an  English  borough."7 
All  freemen  not  participating  in  the  election  of  a  burgess 
were  required  to  send  a  proxy  or  attend  in  person.  We  find 

1  See  I  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Nethtrland,  392. 

*  For  details  of  the  methods  used  in  electing  these  officers,  see  Pennsylvania 
Statutes,  4  Anne,  chap.  153,  Franklin  ed.  Laws,  1742,  105;  Delaware  Statutes, 
12  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2ia;   Franklin  and  Hall,  ed.  1752,  29;  Adams  ed.  1797,63. 

3  §  8,  "  Liberi  tenentes." 

*§  37,  "Liberi  homines."    For  a  copy  of  charter  in  the  original  Latin,  and  also 
a  translation,  see  Bacon's  Laws  (1765). 

*  See  2  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  33,  34. 

6  See  Maryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  i;   2  Bozman, 
History  of  Maryland,  47 ;  also  Appendix  A,  to  this  work,  for  a  copy  of  one  of 
the  writs;   Bacon's  Laws,  ed.  1765,  7  Caecilius  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  I,  chap.  26. 
The  pages  in  Bacon  are  not  numbered. 

7  Afaryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  74,  81,  82. 


34 


HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 


even  as  late  as  1642  that  freemen  not  represented  were  fined 
twenty  pounds  of  tobacco.1 

The  reason  why  the  freemen  of  Maryland  were  permitted 
to  be  represented  by  proxy  and  thus  apparently  act  in  con- 
travention to  the  well  known  rule  of  the  common  law  which 
forbade  the  exercise  of  a  public  franchise  by  proxy,  was  that 
they  were  supposed  to  sit  in  their  own  right  as  did  the  Peers 
in  the  English  House  of  Lords.  Like  the  peers,  therefore, 
they  could  be  represented  by  proxy.2  It  followed  from 
this,  and  it  was  so  held  in  an  actual  case,  that  freemen 
represented  by  proxy  were  exempt  from  arrest  until  a  reas- 
onable time  after  the  dissolution  of  the  assembly,  just  as  if 
they  had  actually  occupied  their  seats.'1  Of  course  this  state 
of  affairs  did  not  continue  after  the  population  of  the  colony 
became  relatively  larger.  The  custom  disappeared  about 
1658. 

In  1689,  because  the  Baltimore  family  adhered  to  the  Ro- 
man faith,  the  British  crown  took  the  government  into  its 
own  hands  and  did  not  restore  it  until  1715.  Then  it  was 
given  to  a  member  of  the  family  who  professed  the  Protes- 
tant religion.4  Assemblies  were  called,  however,  at  intervals 
throughout  Maryland's  colonial  history,  and  the  following 
quotation  from  a  letter  of  Governor  Sharpe  to  Lord  Balti- 
more, under  date  of  June  6th,  1754,  shows  that  elections 
were  held  at  intervals  of  three  years : 

"  I  will  beg  leave  to  submit  to  your  Lordship's  Consideration 
whether  it  be  impracticable  or  improper  to  fall  on  any  method  to 
put  a  Stop  to  such  Perverseness  as  might  generally  be  perceived  in 
the  proceedings  of  our  Lower  Houses  of  Assembly  which  is  in  great 
measure  owing  to  the  short  Duration  of  our  Sessions  which  termin- 

1  Maryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  169;   also  2,  3,  et  seq. 

2  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  48,  49. 

3  Maryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  8. 

4  See  Bacon's  Laws. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  95 

ate  at  the  end  of  3  years :  few  Gentn  will  submit  so  frequently  to 
the  inconveniences  that  such  as  canvass  for  Seats  in  that  House 
must  necessarily  subject  themselves  to ;  by  which  means  there  are 
too  many  Instances  of  the  lowest  Persons  at  least  men  of  small  for- 
tunes no  Soul  &  very  mean  Capacities  appearing  as  Representatives 
of  their  respective  Counties ;  As  there  would  be  no  want  I  apprehend 
of  Gentn  to  appear  as  Candidates  if  the  Drudgery  of  Electioneering 
was  to  return  less  frequently.  I  submit  to  your  Lordships  Wisdom 
whether  there  may  be  any  impropriety  (if  a  more  agreeable  Choice 
of  Members  should  be  made)  in  continuing  the  next  assembly  for 
more  years  than  has  been  lately  usual  or  customary."1 

§  9.  Virginia.  The  first  Virginia  Charter  (1606)  placed 
the  legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  a  council  whose 
members  were  appointed  by  the  crown.2  The  second  (1609) 
made  the  council  a  corporation J  to  meet  in  England.  The 
third  and  last  charter  (1611—12)  provided  for  four  great 
courts  to  be  held  annually  in  England  for  managing  the  affairs 
of  the  company.4  By  virtue  of  this  charter,  the  treasurer, 
council  and  company  in  England  issued  on  July  2ist,  1621, 
an  Ordinance  and  Constitution  which  placed  the  legisla- 
tive power  in  Virginia  in  the  hands  of  a  council  of  state  and 
an  assembly.  The  assembly  was  to  consist  of  two  bur- 
gesses to  be  elected  by  the  inhabitants  of  each  hundred, 
town  or  other  particular  plantation,  and  to  be  called  "  once 
a  year  and  no  oftener."5 

But  this  ordinance  had  been  anticipated,  for  the  first  legis- 
lative assembly  of  Virginia  met  "  in  the  church  quire "  at 
James  City  on  July  3Oth,  1619.  It  was  called  by  the  gov- 
ernor, Sir  George  Yeardley,  who  "  sente  his  summons  all 

1  Maryland  Archives ;  I  Correspondence  Gov.  Sharpe,  68. 

2  I  Hening,  Statutes  at  Large,  61,  68.  3  Ibid.,  90. 

4  Ibid.,  103. 

5  Ibid.,  1 10,  et  seq.     See  also  Sir  Francis  Wyatt's  commission   as  governor,  I 
Hening,  113;  3  Hening,  236. 


36  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

over  the  country,"  ordering  two  burgesses  "  out  of  each  In- 
corporation and  Plantation  freely  to  be  elected  by  the  inhab- 
itants." This  was  without  doubt  the  first  election  held  on 
the  American  continent  by  men  of  Anglo-Saxon  lineage 
under  an  organized  government,  and,  on  that  account,  is  of 
especial  importance.1  A  second  assembly  was  called  in 
November,  i62i,2  but  the  first  legislature  whose  records  are 
preserved  in  Hening's  Statutes  at  Large  was  that  of  I623-4.3 
The  House  of  Burgesses  (as  the  Virginia  assembly  was 
called)  met  with  greater  or  less  regularity  until  1773.*  Dur- 
ing Bacon's  rebellion  in  1676,  a  house  of  burgesses,  elected 
by  the  insurgents,  met  and  passed  laws.5  Throughout  the 
eighteenth  century  members  were  returned  by  the  counties, 
cities  and  towns,  and  by  the  College  of  William  and  Mary.6 
According  to  a  statute  enacted  in  1 763 ,7  elections  were  to 
be  triennial. 

§  10.  The  Carolinas.  Both  North  and  South  Carolina 
were  included  in  the  two  charters  under  which  the  Carolina 
proprietors  derived  their  rights.  The  first  charter,  that  of 
1663,  gave  to  the  proprietors  the  fullest  power  of  making 
laws  "  with  the  advice,  assent,  and  approbation  of  the 
freemen  of  the  said  province  or  of  the  greater  part  of  them 
or  of  their  deputies."  Laws  could  be  made  by  the  pro- 
prietors themselves  until  they  exercised  their  power  of 
calling  the  freemen  together."  The  second  charter  (1665) 

1  New  York  Historical  Society  Collections,  2d  Series,  vol.  iii.,  331  et  seq.,  1857, 
Stith,  History  of  Virginia,  160. 

2  I  Hening,  119.  3  i  Hening. 

*  8  Hening,  647.  5  2  Hening,  356. 

6  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  7,  3  Hening,  236.  In  England  it  has  long  been  a  cus- 
tom for  the  two  universities  to  return  members  to  the  House  of  Commons.  See 
Statute,  9  Anne,  chap.  5,  3dly. 

1  3  Geo.  III.,  chap.  I,  §  3,  7  Hening,  519. 

8  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  23. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 


37 


gave  similar  authority,  as  well  as  a  limited  ordinance 
power,  whenever  assemblies  could  not  be  called.1  But 
the  first  charter  speaks  of  the  whole  territory  as  one 
province,2  while  the  second  grants  power  to  divide  the 
country  into  "  counties,  baronies  and  colonies  with  separate 
and  distinct  jurisdictions,  liberties  and  privileges."3  The 
latter  provision  is  of  importance  from  our  point  of  view,  be- 
cause from  it  resulted  the  final  division  into  two  provinces, 
each  with  a  separate,  elective  legislature. 

Before  the  Lords  Proprietors  received  their  charter,  some 
settlers  from  New  England  had  established  themselves  in  the 
Carolina  territory,  and  it  may  not  be  presumptuous  to  sup- 
pose that  they  chose  their  own  officers.4  In  a  "declaration 
and  proposals  to  all  that  will  plant  in  Carolina,"  issued  by 
the  proprietors  in  1663,  it  was  provided  that  the  under- 
takers, before  leaving  for  America,  should  select  thirteen 
persons  from  among  their  number,  and  out  of  these  a 
governor  and  six  members  of  the  council  should  be  com- 
missioned. The  successors  of  the  governor  were  to  be 
chosen  from  the  council,  while  the  number  of  the  latter  was 
to  be  completed  from  the  six  persons  remaining.  On  the 
25th  of  March,  preceding  the  expiration  of  the  official  terms 
of  these  magistrates,  a  new  set  of  thirteen  names  was  to 
be  presented  by  the  freeholders  of  the  colony,  or  "  by  such 
persons  as  they  shall  constitute."  By  the  tenth  of  the  fol- 
lowing month,  the  new  governor  and  council  were  to  be 
commissioned  from  this  list.  The  freeholders,  in  person  or 
represented  by  two  deputies  from  each  parish,  tribe  or 
division,  were  to  make  laws  which  should  be  binding,  unless 

1  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  104. 
*  5th  Paragraph,  ibid.,  23. 

3  4th  Paragraph,  ibid.,  104. 

4  2  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  70,  et  seq. 


3  g  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

abrogated  by  the  proprietors  within  a  year.1  Dr.  Hawks2 
states  that  these  proposals  were  put  into  force  at  Cape  Fear 
but  not  in  the  settlement  at  Albemarle,  which  ultimately 
developed  into  North  Carolina.  If  this  is  true,  it  is  the 
only  instance  within  the  knowledge  of  the  writer,  in  which 
the  inhabitants  of  any  of  the  colonies  south  of  New  Eng- 
land had  any  share  in  the  choice  of  their  governor,  or 
of1  his  council,  except,  perhaps  during  the  twenty  years 
when  the  Pennsylvania  council  was  elected  by  the  people, 
and  the  occasions  on  which,  as  we  shall  see,  the  same 
was  done  in  South  Carolina.'  The  proprietors  received  at 
about  the  same  time  a  letter  from  certain  "  gentlemen  from 
Barbadoes,"  who  proposed  settling  in  Carolina,  and  asked 
for  permission  to  elect  their  own  officers.*  They  were  told 
that  proposals  which  we  have  just  described  would  be  fol- 
lowed.5 

In  this  same  year,  the  proprietors  issued  a  commission 
to  Sir  William  Berkeley,  governor  of  Virginia,  empower- 
ing him  to  establish  a  government  in  Albemarle.  He  was 
to  have  a  council  which  in  the  making  of  laws  should  act 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  freeholders  or  freemen, 
of  the  major  part  of  their  delegates  or  deputies.6  In  the 
"concessions"  of  1 665, 7  and  in  the  instructions  issued  ten 
years  later  to  the  governor  of  Albemarle,8  it  was  provided 
that  the  inhabitants  who  were  freemen  or  chief  agents  to 
others,  should  choose  deputies  to  cooperate  with  a  governor 
and  council  ,in  making  laws.  As  soon  as  the  country  was 

1  I  North  Carolina   Colonial  Records,   43;    Rivers,    South  Carolina,  335;    2 
Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  27. 

2  2  History  of  North  Carolina,  144. 

•s  See  also  as  to  West  Jersey,  ante,  p.  26. 

4  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  40.  5  Ibid.,  58. 

6  Ibid.,  50.  t  Ibid.,  80,  81. 

8  Ibid.,  1 66. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


39 


sufficiently  settled,  each  district  was  to  have  a  representative. 
In  a  book  published  in  London  in  1665,  and  describing  the 
advantages  of  Carolina,  it  was  stated  that  the  inhabitants 
would  have  a  governor  and  council,  chosen  from  among 
themselves,  as  well  as  an  annually  elected  assembly.1  The 
instructions  of  Governor  Stephens  in  1667,  however,  gave  his 
council  power  to  fill  its  own  vacancies.2 

We  shall  at  present  confine  ourselves  to  the  history  of  the 
Albemarle  settlement,  and  treat  it  with  particular  reference 
to  the  subject  of  elections.  The  time  of  the  election  of  the 
first  assembly  is  not  positively  known ;  it  has  been  placed  as 
early  as  i663.3  The  legislature  of  1670  is  the  first  of  which 
the  records  remain.4  The  assembly  was  elected  under 
instructions  to  the  Governor  that  writs  should  be  sent  to  four 
precincts  in  Albemarle  county,  commanding  each  of  them 
to  elect  four  representatives.  The  assembly  so  formed  was 
to  choose  four  members  of  the  council.3  As  soon  as  the 
government  just  described  had  been  established,  the  first 
edition  of  the  celebrated  constitution  which  the  philosopher 
Locke  had  drawn  up  at  the  request  of  the  proprietors  was  re- 
ceived. Four  subsequent  editions  were  sent  over,  and  at- 
tempts were  made  to  enforce  it  until  after  1698.  But  these 
were  futile,  and  it  had  little  influence,  either  in  the  northern 
or  in  the  southern  part  of  the  Carolinas.  The  constitution 
provided  for  a  parliament  to  be  composed  of  the  proprietors 
or  their  deputies,  the  various  ranks  of  the  nobility,  and  rep- 
resentatives elected  biennially  by  the  freeholders  of  each 
precinct.  As  all  the  members  were  to  sit  in  one  room  and 
each  had  a  single  vote,  and  as  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why 

1  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  157. 
4  Ibid.,  164;   Chalmers,  Political  Annals,  524. 

3  See   I   Moore,  History  of  North   Carolina,  17;   2  Hawks,  History  of  North 
Carolina,  144,  where  the  various  authorities  are  collected  and  discussed. 

4  I  North.  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  183.  5  Ibid.,  181,  235,  333. 


40  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

the  constitution  proved  impracticable  was  the  lack  of  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  persons  to  form  the  nobility,  it  will  readily 
be  seen  that  the  freeholders  would  have  a  large  share  in  the 
business  of  the  parliament.1  Constables  and  other  minor  of- 
ficers were  to  be  annually  elected.2 

The  governor  of  Albemarle  was  known  as  such  until  1690, 
when  the  name  North  Carolina  seems  to  have  come  into  use.3 
In  1691  Governor  Ludwell  "of  Carolina"  was  empowered  to 
order  the  election  of  five  delegates  from  Albemarle  county 
who  should  join  with  fifteen  from  the  counties  in  the  more 
southern  settlements,  to  form  one  assembly  for  all  Carolina.4 
However,  this  order  was  almost  immediately  rescinded,  on 
account  of  the  impracticability  of  having  North  Carolina  send 
delegates  to  Charleston.5  Until  1712,  there  was  but  one 
governor  for  the  entire  province,  though  each  part  elected 
its  own  assembly.6  The  last  legislature  under  the  rule  of  the 
proprietors  was  elected  in  I728.7 

The  first  assembly  in  North  Carolina  under  royal  authority 
met  in  April,  1731,"  and  the  last  in  November,  1774."  The 
authority  for  electing  these  assemblies  is  found  in  the  com- 
mission of  Burrington,  the  first  royal  governor.10  He  was  told 
to  follow  the  laws  and  usages  of  North  Carolina  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  thus  presumed  that  the  members  of  the  assembly 
were  to  be  elected  biennially.'1  The  separation  between  the 

1  Arts.  71,  72,  73,  75,  etc.;  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  199,  et  seq. 

2  Art.  91. 

3 "  That  part  of  our  province  that  lies  north  and  east  of  Cape  Feare."  I  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  xxiv.,  360. 

4  Ibid.,  377.  5  Ibid.,  380. 

6  2  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  493.  ~  Ibid.,  569. 

8  I  Moore,  History  of  North  Carolina,  54. 

9  2  Martin,  History  of  North   Carolina,  .328.  10  Jan'y  I5th,  1729-30. 

11  3  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  68.  For  the  law  as  to  biennial  assem- 
blies, see  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Reeords,  213. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  4! 

two  Carolinas  was  not  legally  recognized  until  after  they 
became  royal  provinces,  though  each  of  them  had  always 
elected  its  own  assembly. 

The  "  gentlemen  from  Barbadoes "  already  mentioned, 
settled  near  Cape  Fear  under  Governor  Yeamans,1  in  1665, 
at  a  spot  where  a  New  England  settlement  had  once  stood.2 
It  is  said  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  introduce  the  Locke 
constitutions  here,  but  however  that  may  be,  the  colony 
gradually  dwindled  away,  so  that  in  1690  there  was  not  a 
settler  left.3 

In  1669  the  proprietors  issued  a  commission  to  Governor 
Sayle  for  the  country  south  and  west  of  Cape  Fear.4  He 
was  instructed  to  call  together  the  freemen  as  soon  as  he 
reached  Port  Royal  and  cause  them  to  elect  four  persons  to 
join  with  him  and  his  council  in  making  laws.  He  was  also 
to  require  the  freeholders  to  choose  twenty  persons  to  form  a 
parliament ;  the  other  requirements  of  the  first  issue  of  Locke's 
constitution  being  dispensed  with  for  the  time  being.  These 
instructions  appear  to  have  been  carried  into  effect,  not  at 
Port  Royal,  but  at  a  new  settlement  on  the  Ashley  river, 
near  the  present  site  of  Charleston.5  The  instructions  of 
Governor  Yeamans,  two  years  later,  contained  similar  pro- 
visions 6  and  required  a  biennial  parliament.7 

In  1682  the  proprietors  ordered  ten  members  of  the  bien- 
nial parliament  to  be  chosen  at  "  Charlestowne  in  Berkly 
county,"  and  ten  at  London  in  Colleton  county.8  The  latter 
had  so  few  inhabitants  that  this  apportionment  was  considered 

1  Chalmers,  Political  Annals,  523. 

2  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  36;  see  ibid.,  95,  for  Yeamans'  commis- 
sion. 

3  2  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  455^6;   Rivers,  South  Carolina,  71. 

4  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  340. 

5  Ibid.,  95,  97.  *  Ibid.,  366. 

'Ibid.,  379.     Election  of  twenty  members  took  place  in  April,  1672,  ibid.,  109. 
8  Ibid.,  406. 


42  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

unfair,  and  at  the  election  of  1683  no  attention  was  paid  to 
the  order.1  About  this  time  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  gov- 
ernor was  filled  by  vote  of  the  council,  and  as  some  of  the 
members  of  this  body  were  elected  by  the  parliament,  the 
people  had  an  indirect  voice  in  the  matter.2  Governor 
Ludwell's  instructions  of  1691,  as  already  mentioned,  gave 
five  of  the  twenty  seats  in  the  parliament  to  delegates 
from  North  Carolina,  each  of  the  three  southern  counties 
being  allowed  the  same  number.3  When  this  order  was 
rescinded,  Berkeley  county  was  given  seven  members,  Col- 
leton  the  same  number  and  the  remaining  one,  six.4  The  ad- 
mission of  Craven  county  to  a  share  in  the  election  of  dele- 
gates to  the  parliament  is  of  importance,  because  this  portion 
of  the  country  was  inhabited  almost  exclusively  by  Hugue- 
nots, who  had  previously  had  no  share  in  the  making  of  laws.5 
In  1695  the  freemen  were  called  together  in  general  as- 
sembly to  decide  about  the  number  of  representatives. 
Twenty  was  the  number  fixed  upon  for  Berkeley  county  and 
ten  for  Colleton,  while  Craven  was  omitted  altogether/' 
Elections  after  this  time  do  not  seem  to  have  been  carried  on 
in  a  very  orderly  manner.7  The  apportionment  of  delegates 
to  the  commons  house  of  assembly,  as  the  popular  branch 
of  the  legislature  was  called,  appears  to  have  furnished  a 
subject  of  contention,  and  the  people  were  well  pleased 
when  an  act  of  1716  provided  tfyat  the  parish  instead  of  the 
county  should  be  the  election  district/  The  privilege  of 

fivers,  South  Carolina,  136.  '2  Ibid.,  141. 

3  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  371.  *  Ibid.,  380;   Rivers,  160. 

5  The  journals  of  the  Parliament  show  that  Huguenot  members  were  returned 
and  that  they  swore  allegiance  to  William  III.  Rivers,  176. 

6  Rivers,  181,  453,  et  seq.     About  this  time  the  first  mention  of  the  name  South 
Carolina  is  to  be  found.     Act  1696,  2  Cooper,  124. 

7  Rivers,  453,  462,  196,  206. 

8  Act  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683,  see  in  particular  the  preamble;   Rivers,  287. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


43 


elections  was  always  jealously  guarded  by  the  settlers  of 
South  Carolina;  and  when,  in  1719,  the  proprietors  re- 
pealed the  last  mentioned  statute,  the  people  rose  in  revolt, 
elected  a  governor  and  appealed  to  the  king.1  The  crown 
sent  over  a  governor  in  1721,  and  his  commission  authorized 
him  to  call  an  assembly.2  This  royal  government  was  only 
provisional,  pending  a  settlement  with  the  Lords  Proprietors. 
The  latter,  with  the  exception  of  Lord  Carteret,  sold  out 
their  interest  in  both  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  the 
purchase  was  confirmed  by  act  of  Parliament.3  The  undi- 
vided one-eighth  interest  of  Carteret,  Earl  of  Granville,  was 
set  apart  by  royal  charter  in  1 744,  but  as  the  right  of  call- 
ing assemblies  to  be  elected  by  the  freemen  was  expressly 
reserved,  this  does  not  concern  us.4  Except  for  a  period  of 
two  years,  from  1745  to  I747,5  when  annual  assemblies  were 
required,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  law  that  elections 
must  be  held  every  two  years,6  although  from  1721  to  1745 
the  duration  of  an  assembly  was  fixed  at  three  years.7  The 
dissolution  of  the  last  royal  legislature  took  place  on  Sep- 
tember 1 5th,  I775.8 

§11.  Georgia.  The  government  of  Georgia  was  vested 
by  royal  charter  of  1732,  in  the  hands  of  a  council 
whose  legal  title  was  the  "Trustees  for  establishing  the 
colony  of  Georgia  in  America."  The  trustees  filled  va- 
cancies among  their  own  number,  but  their  power  was 

1  Rivers,  292  to  310.  •    2  I  Ramsay,  History  of  South  Carolina,  95. 

3  Statute,  2  Geo.  II.,  chap.  34,  i  Cooper,  60. 
*  4  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  655. 

5  Act  1 745,  no.  730,  3  Cooper,  656. 

6  Act  1747,  no.  746,  3  Cooper,  692;   Locke's  Constitution,  Art.  75;   Act  1694, 
Trotts'  Laws,  36;  Act  no.  108,  2  Cooper,  80. 

T  Act  1745,  no.  556,  3  Cooper,  135. 

8  I  Ramsay,  History  of  South  Carolina,  249. 


44 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


limited  to  twenty-one  years.1  These  trustees  appointed  all 
the  officers  of  the  colony,  whether  judicial  or  otherwise.2 
In  1750,  the  affairs  of  the  colony  were  in  a  bad  way  and 
the  trustees,  hoping  to  provide  a  remedy,  proposed  that  each 
town,  village  or  district  should  depute  one  delegate  if  it  had 
ten  families  or  more,  and  two  if  it  had  thirty,  to  attend  an 
assembly  held  annually  at  Savannah.  As  the  whole  power 
of  making  laws  was  in  the  hands  of  the  trust'ees,  this  assembly 
could  have  power  only  to  "propose,  debate  and  represent" 
their  grievances.3  By  virtue  of  this  resolution,  the  assembly 
met  on  January  I5th,  1751,  elected  a  speaker,  and  on  the 
following  Sunday  listened  to  a  sermon  "  suitable  for  the 
occasion."  '  They  transacted  no  business  beyond  drawing 
up  bills  of  grievances,*  and  as  the  trustees  surrendered  their 
charter  in  June,  1752,  no  more  assemblies  were  elected,  under 
the  authority  of  the  trust.5  The  crown  appointed  a  governor 
and  council,  and,  as  was  generally  the  case,  gave  the  governor 

1  Hotchkiss,  Digest  of  Laws  of  Georgia,  20,  etseq.;  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia, 
476,  et  seq. 

2 1  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  chap.  vii. 

3  3  Minutes  of  Common  Council,  235;  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  245,  et 
seq.  The  qualifications  to  be  possessed  by  these  delegates  were  so  remarkable 
and  therefore  furnish  so  good  an  example  of  the  absurd  theories  which  the  home 
governments  were  fond  of  attempting  to  put  into  practice  in  America,  that  they 
are  inserted  in  this  connection.  From  June,  1751,  to  June,  1753,  no  person  could 
be  a  deputy  unless  he  had  "  a  hundred  mulberry  trees  planted  and  properly  fenced 
upon  every  fifty  acres  he  possessed."  After  1753,  a  deputy  must  be  a  person  who 
had  strictly  conformed  to  the  limitation  of  the  number  of  negro  slaves  in  propor- 
tion to  his  white  servants,  who  had  at  least  one  female  in  his  family  instructed  in 
the  art  of  reeling  silk,  and  who  yearly  produced  fifteen  pounds  of  silk  upon  fifty 
acres  of  land,  and  the  like  quantity  upon  every  fifty  acres  he  possessed.  "  But  as 
the  Trustees  are  desirous  of  seeing  some  immediate  good  effects  from  this  as- 
sembly, and  are  sensible  that  at  present  there  are  not  many  in  the  province  who 
may  have  the  necessary  qualifications,"  the  members  of  the  first  assembly  were 
wisely  exempted  from  the  operation  of  these  rules. — 3  Minutes  of  Common  Coun- 
cil, 235;  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  245,  et  seq. 

*  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  248,  et  seq.  6  Ibid.,  258. 


LY  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


45 


authority  to  call  an  assembly.  Writs  were  sent  out  and  the 
first  election  held  in  the  latter  part  of  1754.*  The  members 
of  the  Commons  house  of  assembly  continued  to  be  chosen 
at  intervals  until  1780.  In  that  year  writs  were  sent  to  all 
the  provost  marshals,  but  those  whose  territory  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  rebels  were  permitted  to  prove  that  fact  by 
affidavits,  instead  of  returning  a  member.'2 

1 1  -Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  381-393. 
2  2  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  318. 


CHAPTER  II.    THE  SUFFRAGE. 

QUALIFICATIONS   REQUIRED  OF    ELECTORS. 

In  .the  early  part  of  the  history  of  each  colony  the  quali- 
fications required  of  electors  were  neither  numerous  nor  well 
defined.  On  account  of  the  small  number  of  inhabitants,  it 
was  at  first  hardly  necessary,  and  perhaps  not  advisable,  to 
limit  the  elective  franchise  to  any  particular  class  of  individ- 
uals. Consequently,  in  the  summons  that  was  sent  out  by 
the  first  royal  governor  or  proprietor,  the  "  freeholders  "  or 
the  "  freemen,"  of  a  certain  district  were  ordered  to  elect  a 
certain  number  of  deputies  or  representatives,  as  the  case 
might  be.1  In  Virginia,  on  the  contrary,  the  "  inhabitants  " 
were  to  elect  the  first  house  of  burgesses.2  In  the  colonies 
under  royal  rule  the  qualifications  of  voters  were  very  fre- 
quently fixed  by  the  commissions  of  the  governors.  But  in 
the  instructions,  as  well  as  in  the  commissions  of  the  early 
governors,  the  definition  of  a  voter  rarely  went  beyond  the 
single  word  "  freeholder,"  and  the  fixing  of  a  more  precise 
meaning  to  this  general  term  seems  to  have  been  left  for  legis- 
lative action.  In  the  preceding  chapter  care  has  been  taken  to 
mention  in  many  instances  the  authority  from  the  crown 

1  See  for  example  in  Maryland  "  freemen"  (Act  of  1637-8,  Maryland  Archives, 
I  Assembly,  I,  27,  28,  87,  88,  114,  121,  etc.,  etc.');  in  Pennsylvania  "free- 
holders," writ  of  1682  (i  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  234);  also  in  New 
York,  (Introduction  to  Journal  Legislative  Council,  xiv.)  and  in  New  Jersey  (l 
New  Jersey  Archives,  56).  These  writs  are  published  in  appendix  A  of  this  work. 

a  i  Hening,  no,  113. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  47 

through  which  the  qualification  of  an  elector  was  originally 
derived.1 

Thus  far  we  have  been  treating  of  the  elective  franchise  in 
the  colonies  at  a  time  when  they  were  most  closely  under 
royal  rule.  But  in  New  England,  while  she  retained  her  in- 
dependence, the  case  was  different,  and  the  right  of  voting 
for  officers  was  inherent  in  all  freemen  and  incidental  to 
membership  in  the  corporation.  Thus  in  the  four  colonies  of 
Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut 
the  word  freemen  had  a  special  significance,  which  was 
taken  away  when  the  two  former  became  a  royal  province 
by  the  charter  of  1691,  and  which  remained  in  the  two 
latter  until  the  revolution.  A  freeman  did  not  become  such, 
unless  he  possessed  certain  prescribed  qualifications,  and 
until  he  had  been  approved,  admitted  and  sworn,  in  a 
manner  which  will  be  described  in  a  subsequent  section  of 
the  present  chapter.  When  a  man  had  been  admitted  to 
the  freedom  of  one  of  these  colonies,  his  position  was  ana- 
logous to  that  of  a  freeman  in  a  city  or  borough,  and  as  such 
he  became  entitled  fo  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise. 
That  the  privilege  of  voting  in  the  elections  of  the  province 
was  regarded  as  a  right,  vesting  inherently  in  the  freemen  of 
a  corporation,  is  shown  by  the  New  York  Charter  of  Lib- 
erties and  Privileges,  and  by  the  election  laws  of  the  same 
province,  which  contained  a  clause  exempting  freemen  of 
the  cities  of  Albany  and  New  York  from  their  operation.2 

1  See  references  to  governors'  commissions  and  instructions  mentioned  in  the 
previous  chapter.     New  Hampshire  (i  Provincial  Papers,  379)  is  an  example  of 
a  province  where  the  governor  and  his  council  were  originally  given  full  authority 
to  fix  the  qualifications  of  an  elector,  while  New  Jersey  under  her  first  royal  gov- 
ernor in  1702,  had  the  qualifications  definitely  prescribed  (Learning  and  Spicer, 
623).     Massachusetts  as  a  royal  province  had  the  definition  of  an  elector  fixed  by 
the  charter  of  1691  (Poore,  Constitutions,  949). 

2  See  for  instance,  Charter  of  Liberties  and  Privileges  (2  Brodhead,  History  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  642)  as  patesed  in  1 683,  and  again  in  1691  (Bradford's  Laws 


48  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

The  fact  that  qualifications  could  be  imposed  on  candi- 
dates for  the  freedom  of  a  colony  enabled  Rhode  Island1 
and  Connecticut2  to  ultimately  require  the  possession  of  a 
freehold  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage. 
In  all  of  these  colonies3  freemen  could,  under  certain 
conditions,  be  deprived  of  their  freedom,  and  incidentally 
of  their  rights  as  voters.  In  Rhode  Island  a  law  passed 
in  1724  provided  that  the  privilege  of  electing  depu- 
ties should  not  be  limited  to  freemen  of  the  colony,  to  the 
exclusion  of  freemen  of  the  town.4  This  seems  to  indicate 
a  distinction,  in  Rhode  Island  at  least,  between  the  freedom  of 
the  colony  and  that  of  a  particular  town. 

The  i.arm  freeman  occurs  also  in  the  early  history  of  some 

ed.  1710,  i);  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  10,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;  4  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  127.  That  this  was  also  true  with  respect  to 
boroughs  in  England,  see  Statute  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15;  Cox,  Antient  Parlia- 
mentary Elections,  chap,  viii  and  ix. 

That  the  New  England  colonies  regarded  themselves  as  corporations  is  shown 
by  Laws,  1636,  n  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  7,  Brigham,  37;  Laws,  1658, 
ibid.,  107,  113;  Second  Fundamental,  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  ibid., 
241,  258.  Massachusetts  was  a  "company"  by  its  charter  (i  Massachusetts 
Colonial  Records,  10,  12,)  "freemen  of  this  jurisdiction"  to  elect  officers  (Laws, 
ed.  1660,  28;  1814,  105);  "freedom  of  the  commonwealth,"  (ed.  1660,  33; 
ed.  1814,  117;  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  87);  "  freedom  of  this  body 
politick"  (ibid.,  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  208).  In  Rhode  Island  "free- 
men of  colony"  (i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  236);  "free  inhabitants  of 
colony"  (ibid.,  429).  The  second  charter  (2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  8,) 
provided  for  election  of  officers  out  of  the  company  by  freemen.  In  New  Haven 
the  term  "free  burgesses"  (i  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  20,  35,  46,  etc.") 
seems  to  have  been  used  as  an  equivalent  to  "freemen"  (ibid.,  112);  in  Hart- 
ford, "freemen  of  this  company"  (i  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  417);  in 
Connecticut,  "  freemen  of  this  corporation"  (Session  Laws,  40).  These  colonies 
possessed  the  elements  of  a  corporation  such  as  a  common  seal  and  perpetual 
succession. 

1  9  Geo.  I,  Franklin  ed.,  1730,  131.  2  Session  Laws,  40. 

3  Plymouth,  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  114;  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  ibid., 
258;  Connecticut,  Session  Laws,  40;  Massachusetts,  4  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii, 
143;  Rhode  Island,  I  Colonial  Records,  125. 

*  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  338. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


49 


of  the  southern  colonies.  But  as  these  were  either  proprietary 
or  directly  under  royal  rule,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
word  was  used  in  its  literal  significance  oifree  man.  Thus 
a  Virginia  statute,  in  limiting  the  elective  franchise  to  free- 
holders, spoke  in  its  preamble  of  the  election  of  burgesses 
having  been  "  by  the  votes  of  all  persons  who  haveing  served 
their  tyme  are  ffreemen  of  this  country."1  Before  this  date 
(1670),  all  free  men  had  possessed  the  privilege  of  electing 
burgesses.2  On  account  of  there  being  no  evidence  of  any- 
thing like  the  technical  freedom  which  existed,  as  has  already 
been  shown,  in  the  New  England  colonies  and  in  the  Eng- 
lish municipal  corporations,  it  seems  reasonable  to  infer  that 
the  word  freeman  had  no  technical  meaning  here,  although 
the  qualifying  phrase  "of  this  country"  gives  color  to  an 
opposite  belief.  In  the  Carolina  charters,  and  commissions, 
the  word  freemen  also  occurs3  in  its  literal  meaning,  although 
the  contrast  between  the  words  freeholders  and  freemen  in 
Locke's  constitution,  seems  to  imply  a  technical  signifi- 
cance.4 As  only  the  former  could  vote,  the  question  does 
not  particularly  concern  us. 

Penn's  frame  of  government  and  the  laws  agreed  upon  in 
England  speak  of  "  freemen  of  the  said  province  "  who  were  to 
be  capable  of  electing  representatives  or  of  being  elected  to 
the  provincial  council  or  assembly.5  The  charter  of  Phila- 
delphia speaks  of  persons  who  were  free  denizens  of  the 
province  being  admitted  as  freemen  of  the  city;6  but  this 
is  the  technical  freedom  of  a  corporation  on  which  depended 
certain  rights  not  connected  with  the  suffrage.  As  the 
statutes  and  charters  of  this  province  and  of  Delaware  fix 

1  22  Car.  II,  2  Hening,  280.  *  See  I  Hening,  333,  403;   2  Hening,  356. 

3  See  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  23,80,  104,  166,  377;   Rivers,  South 
Carolina,  Appendix,  347. 

4  i  Cooper,  43,  especially  art.  94.      5  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37,  33. 
6  Miller's  Laws,  10,  n. 


$0  HISTOR  Y  OF  FLECTIONS 

the  qualifications  required  of  voters  with  great  exactness,  the 
use  of  this  term  is  not  so  important  from  our  point  of  view. 

In  the  Maryland  charter,  which  was  drawn  up  in  Latin, 
the  terms  liberi  tenentes^  and  lib eri  homines'1  occur  in  such 
a  connection  as  to  lead  to  the  inference  that  only  free- 
holders could  make  laws.3  But  there  seems  to  be  a  plain 
distinction  between  the  words.  All  freeholders  are  freemen, 
but  a  freeman  could  not  possibly  be  a  freeholder,  unless  he 
owned  a  freehold  in  land.  However,  when  the  question  came 
up  for  discussion,  the  charter  was  interpreted  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  destroy  all  distinction  between  the  two  terms  and  give 
the  word  freemen,  in  Maryland  at  least,  a  technical  meaning. 
At  one  of  the  early  assemblies  when  all  persons  were  re-  • 
quired  to  attend  either  in  person  or  by  proxy  (which  could 
be  done  by  joining  in  the  election  of  a  representative),  and 
a  summons  was  sent  to  all  delinquents,  a  "  certain  Thomas 
Weston  being  called,  pleaded  he  was  no  freeman  because  he 
had  no  land  or  certain  dwelling  here,  &c.,  but  being  put  to 
the  question  it  was  voted  that  he  was  a  Freeman,  and  as  such 
bound  to  his  appearance  by  himself  or  proxie,  whereupon 
he  took  place  in  the  house."4  Subsequent  Maryland  laws 
gave  the  franchise  to  freemen  with  a  certain  amount  of 
property  in  freehold  or  in  personalty.5  That  even  the  states- 
men of  Rhode  Island  were  not  always  perfectly  clear  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  term  freeman  is  shown  by  the  doubts 
which  arose  when  the  question  of  the  interpretation  of  this 
word  in  the  charter  of  1664  came  up.6 

In  the  preceding  pages  I  have  attempted  to  give  some 

1  §  8.  *  §  37,  see  Bacon's  Laws. 

3  See  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  48,  note;   McMahon,  History  of  Alary- 
land,  444. 

*  Maryland  Archives,  i  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  170. 
5  Maryland  Archives,  3  Assembly,  60. 
8  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  29. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  5  ! 

idea  of  the  indefinite  character  which  marked  the  qualifica- 
tions required  of  electors  in  the  early  history  of  each  colony. 
Gradually  by  means  of  legislative  action,  additional  and 
more  specific  qualifications  were  imposed.  The  following 
sections  will,  therefore,  aim  to  classify  the  tests  required  of 
electors  at  different  times  in  the  various  colonies.  Every 
statutory  requirement  which  has  come  within  the  knowledge 
of  the  author  has  been  included,  although  all  of  them  may 
not  have  been  in  actual  operation,  Such,  for  instance,  are 
those  prescribed  by  constitutions  like  that  of  Locke  or  of 
the  East  Jersey  proprietors  which  never  went  into  effect, 
as  well  as  those  contained  in  statutes  repealed  by  au- 
thority of  the  crown  or  of  the  proprietors.  The  qualifica- 
tions imposed  by  the  latter  class  of  statutes  were  gener- 
ally in  force,  however,  until  abrogated  by  the  proper  au- 
thority. Only  by  comparison  of  dates  and  examination  of 
the  references  will  it  be  possible  for  the  reader  to  ascertain 
precisely  what  was  the  qualification  required  from  a  voter  in 
any  particular  province  at  a  given  time.  Indeed,  the  subject 
is  not  always  free  from  doubt,  because  a  new  statute  did  not 
always  in  terms  repeal  a  preceding  one.  A  law  might  also 
fall  into  disuse  through  non-user,  and  we  have  the  reports 
of  very  few  concrete  cases  where  questions  involving  the 
suffrage  were  decided  by  competent  authority. 

§  I.  Ethnic.  Race  qualifications  were  not  prescribed  by 
statute,  except  in  the  southern  colonies.  I  know  of  no  law 
that  would  prevent  an  Indian  or  a  negro,  if  otherwise  quali- 
fied, from  voting  in  the  northern  colonies.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  following  provisions  are  all  of  a  comparatively  late 
date. 

Thus,  in  Virginia1  and  North  Carolina  *  no  negro,  mulatto, 

*3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  7,  7  Hening,  519. 

*  Laws  1715,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 


5  2  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

or  Indian  could  vote,  while  in  the  former  colony  this  was 
declared  to  be  so,  even  if  such  persons  were  freeholders. 
North  Carolina  also  disfranchised  Mustees.1  In  South  Caro- 
lina *  and  in  Georgia3  the  franchise  was  expressly  restricted 
to  white  men.  Notwithstanding  these  laws,  negroes  were 
sometimes  permitted  to  vote  even  in  South  Carolina.  A 
petition  to  the  Lords  Proprietors  complains  of  this  abuse 
being  practiced  in  Berkeley  county  in  1701  and  1703,*  when 
"  free  Negroes  were  received  and  taken  for  as  good  Electors 
as  the  best  freeholders  in  the  province." 

§  2.  Political.  Qualifications  of  this  sort  were  rarely  pre- 
scribed by  statute.  In  Pennsylvania,5  voters  were  required 
to  be  natural  born  subjects  of  England ;  in  Delaware,6  of 
Great  Britain.  Persons  naturalized  in  England  or  in  Penn- 
sylvania could  vote  in  either  colony,  while  Delaware  per- 
mitted persons  naturalized  within  her  own  borders  to  vote.7 
Massachusetts8  after  1664  required  freemen  to  be  Eng- 


1  Laws   1715.     This  law  as  printed  in    2  North   Carolina   Colonial  Records, 
213,  omits  the  word  Mustees,  which,  as  we  have  learned  through  the  kindness 
of  Mr.  J.  C.  Birdsong,  Librarian  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  original  act.     A  Mustee  (or  Mestee)  is  the  offspring  of  a  white  and  a  quad- 
roon {Century  Dictionary,  vol. iv.). 

2  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  xx,  2  Cooper,  683;   Act  1717,  no.  373,  §  i,  3  Cooper,  2; 
Act  1719,  no.  394,  §  iv,  3  Cooper,  50;  Act  1721,  no.  446,  §  iii,  3  Cooper,  135; 
Act  1745,  no.  730,  3  Cooper,  657. 

3  Act  June  gth,  1761. 

*  This  is  given  in  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  453,  et  seq.     See  also  peti- 
tion to  the  English  House  of  Lords,  ibid.,  462. 
54  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,67. 

6  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  §  2,  Franklin  and  Hall,  ed.   1752,  118;  Adams,  New- 
castle, ed.  1797,  147. 

7  See  also  act  of  1700,  chap.  28,  referred  to  in  Penn's  Charter  of  Privileges. 
Recorded  A.,  Vol.  I.,  15,  published  in  Appendix  B  of  the  present  work. 

8  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  117,  167.     Supplement  to  Laws,  ed. 
1660,  Act  1664,  3;   ed.  1814,  117. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  53 

lishmen,1  while  in  North  Carolina  there  was  the  peculiar  pro- 
vision that  "  no  person  inhabitant  of  this  province,  born  out 
of  the  allegiance  of  his  majesty  and  not  made  free,"  could 
vote.2  The  Pennsylvania  frame  of  government  of  1696  de- 
clared that  electors  must  be  free  denizens  of  the  government' 
and  thus  anticipated  the  action  of  the  English  House  of  Com- 
mons which  held  in  1698  that  no  alien,  (not  being  a  denizen  or 
naturalized) ,  had  any  right  to  vote  for  members  of  parliament.* 

In  this  connection  it  may  well  be  asked  what  was  the 
position  of  the  Huguenots  in  South  Carolina.  Bancroft5 
speaks  of  an  act  passed  in  1696,"  by  which  the  suffrage  was 
given  to  all  except  Roman  Catholics.  How  far  this  is  true 
the  writer  has  been  unable  to  ascertain.  In  1691,  however, 
Governor  Ludwell,  acting  under  instructions  from  the  pro- 
prietors, called  an  assembly  in  which  six  members  were  to 
be  returned  from  Craven  county,  which  was  settled  almost 
entirely  by  Huguenots.  The  journals  of  the  assembly  show 
that  the  members  returned  from  this  district  took  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  William  the  Third.7  The  petition  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  section  complains  that  in  1703 
"almost  every  Frenchman  in  Craven  and  Berkeley  counties 
came  down  to  elect "  and  was  allowed  to  vote.8 

§  3.  Moral.  Moral  qualifications  were  insisted  on  only  in 
New  England,  though  Virginia  denied  the  franchise  to  any 
"  convict  or  person  convicted  in  Great  Britain  or  Ireland 

1  Also  New  Hampshire,  I  New  Hamphire  P.  P.,  396,  but  repealed. 

2  Laws  1715,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

3  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  49. 

4  12  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  367. 

5  3  History  of  United  States,  17,  1 8. 

8  This  is  probably  the  act  mentioned  by  Cooper  (vol.  ii,  p.  130)  and  of  which 
it  is  stated  that  the  original  cannot  be  found.  Although  diligent  inquiry  has  been 
made,  the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  secure  a  copy  of  this  act. 

'Rivers,  South  Carolina,  160,  176,  181.         8 Ibid.,  196,  462,  453,  et seq. 


54 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


during  the  term  for  which  he  is  transported,"  even  though 
such  person  might  be  a  freeholder.1  In  the  New  England 
colonies  moral  delinquencies  had  a  double  effect.  Evidence 
of  a  positive  character  was  at  one  time  necessary  before  a 
person  could  be  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  colony, 
while  the  absence  of  correctness  in  moral  behavior  would,  in 
certain  cases,  lead  to  the  suspension  of  a  freeman  from  his 
privileges  or  even  to  his  total  disfranchisement.  Under 
conditions  of  the  former  class,  Plymouth  refused  to  admit 
as  a  freeman  "  any  opposer  of  the  good  and  wholsome 
laws  of  this  colonie,"  or  "  such  as  refuse  to  do  the  coun- 
try service,  being  called  thereunto."2  Some  years  later  a 
would-be  freeman  needed  the  testimony  of  his  neighbors 
that  he  was  of  "  sober  and  peaceable  conversation.""  Con- 
necticut required  a  certificate  as  to  this,  and  as  to  hon- 
est and  civil  conversation  as  well,  from  a  majority  of  the 
freemen  in  the  town  where  the  candidate  lived.4  A  later  act 
made  necessary  a  certificate  from  the  selectmen  of  the  town 
where  the  candidate  resided,  to  the  effect  that  he  (the  candi- 
date) was  of  a  "  quiet  and  peaceable  behaviour  and  civil 
conversation."  That  the  selectmen  might  exercise  due  care 
in  signing  such  certificates,  they  were  liable  to  a  fine  of 
£$  in  case  the  candidate  turned  out  otherwise  than  was 
represented.5  After  1664  Massachusetts  required  a  certifi- 
cate from  the  minister  at  the  candidate's  place  of  residence 
to  the  effect  that  he  was  not  "  vitious"  in  his  life.6  Rhode 
Island  admitted  as  freemen  all  persons  properly  qualified  in 
other  respects,  if  they  were  "  of  civil  conversation  who  ac- 

1  3  Geo.  Ill,  §  7,  7  Hening,  519.  2  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  113. 

3  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,' chap.  5,  §  5,  Brigham,  258. 
*  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  389. 

5  Session  Laws,  40;   Laws,  ed.  Cambridge,  1673,  26. 

6  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  117,  167. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  55 

knowledged  and  are  obedient  to  the  civil  magistrate."  l  This, 
as  well  as  other  provisions  of  a  similar  nature  first  required 
in  the  New  England  colonies  about  1665,  was  probably  due 
to  the  royal  commission  sent  over  at  that  time,  and  of  which 
more  will  be  said  in  the  next  section.2 

In  order  to  lose  the  freedom  of  Plymouth  freemen  must 
speak  contemptuously  of  the  laws  of  the  general  court  or  of 
the  court  itself,  or  be  adjudged  by  the  court  to  be  "  grossly 
scandalouse,  or  notoriously  vitious,  as  common  lyars,  drunk- 
ards, sucarers  or  doth  manifestly  appear  to  be  disaffected  to 
this  government."5  The  reason  given  for  making  this  enact- 
ment was  that  "  some  corrupt  members  may  creep  into  the 
best  and  purest  societies."  Connecticut  was  less  severe,  and 
a  "scandalous"  freeman  could  be  disfranchised  only  till 
"  good  behaviour  shall  cause  restoration  of  the  privilege."  * 
The  code  of  1650;*  expressed  the  law  on  this  point  in  the 
following  forcible  language :  "  It  is  ordered  by  this  Courte 
and  decreed,  that  if  any  person  within  these  Libberties  haue 
beene  or  shall  be  fyned  or  whipped  for  any  scandalous 
offence,  hee  shall  not  bee  admitted  after  such  time  to  haue 
any  voate  in  Towne  or  Commonwealth,  nor  to  serue  in  the 
Jury,  vntill  the  Courte  shall  manifest  theire  satisfaction." 
The  Cambridge  edition  of  the  laws,  as  published  in  1673, 
gave  the  court  of  assistants  power  to  disfranchise  freemen 
for  scandalous  walking.6  In  Massachusetts  disfranchisement 
was  authorized  as  an  additional  penalty  upon  conviction  of 

1  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  112;    16  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1730, 1744, 4. 

2  A  similar  rule  as  to  moral  qualifications  was  enacted  in  New  Hampshire  in 
1680,  but  soon  repealed,     (i  Provincial  Papers,  396) . 

3  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  114;    Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  6,  Brig- 
ham,  258. 

4  Session  Laws,  40.    .  5  Title  Voales,  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  559. 
6  P.  26,  title,  Freemen  ;  or  this  was  done  by  superior  court,  Session  Laws,  8l. 


5  6  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

fornication  or  any  "shamefull  and  vitious  crime."1  There 
was  also  a  law  that  no  one  who  was  detected  and  convicted 
in  any  court  of  "  any  evill  carriage  agnt  ye  gouernments  or 
churches,  it  being  intended  to  be  imediately  doun"  should 
be  allowed  to  vote  until  he  was  restored  to  liberty  by  the 
court  that  convicted  him.'' 

§  4.  Religious.  In  Massachusetts  and  also  in  the  New 
Haven  colony  freemen  were  required  to  be  church  members. 
This  was  first  ordered  in  the  former  colony  as  early  as  1631. 
"To  the  end  that  the  body  of  the  freemen  may  be  preserved 
of  honest  and  good  men,  it  is  ordered,"  ran  the  statute,  "that 
henceforth  no  man  shall  be  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the 
commonwealth,  but  such  as  are  members  of  some  of  the 
churches  within  the  limits  of  this  jurisdiction."*  In  1660, 
the  general  court  defined  the  meaning  of  this  enactment  to 
be  that  "  no  man  whosoever  shall  be  admitted  to  the  freedom 
of  this  body  politick  but  such  as  are  members  of  some 
church  of  Christ  and  in  full  communion."4  That  this  law 
enabled  many  persons  to  escape  the  liability  of  serving  in  an 
official  capacity  was  shown  in  1643  by  the  court  ordering  that 
all  members  of  churches  refusing  to  take  their  freedom  should 
be  summarily  dealt  with.5  This  law  was  ineffectual,  and 
four  years  later  it  was  enacted  that  all  church  members 
should  be  liable  for  public  service,  and  fined  for  delinquency 
in  that  respect,  just  as  if  they  had  actually  taken  their  free- 
dom.6 This  law  did  not,  however,  at  least  in  terms,  give 
these  non-church  members  power  to  vote  for  general  officers. 
How  fully  this  principle  of  church  membership  was  carried 

1  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  562. 

2  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  no. 

3  Laws,  ed.  1660,  33;   ed.  1814,  117;    I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,'?*']. 
*  Ibid.;  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  i,  420. 

5  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  138. 
*Ibid.,20%;  Laws,ed.  1660,  33;   ed.  1814,  117. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  57 

out  was  curiously  shown  by  the  answer  given  to  a  query 
from  Falmouth  as  to  the  best  way  in  which  the  number 
of  freemen  could  be  increased.  "  It  is  the  best  expedient," 
said  the  general  court,  "to  obteine  the  ends  desired  that 
those  parts  furnish  themselues  wth  an  able,  pious  &  ortho- 
dox minister  &  comend  that  to  them."1 

The  measures  taken  by  Massachusetts  to  preserve  the 
"  honest  and  good  "  character  of  her  freemen  seem  to  have 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  English  government,  and  in 
1662  a  letter  was  addressed  to  the  general  court  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  colony  was  requested  to  permit  all  persons  with 
competent  estates,  not  vicious  in  their  conversation,  and 
"orthodoxe  in  religion  (though  of  different  persuasions  con- 
cerning church  government)",  to  vote.  In  reply,  the  court 
declared  the  law  of  1631  in  reference  to  church  member- 
ship to  be  repealed,  and  proceeded  to  lay  down  a  series  of 
qualifications,  embodying  the  requirements  of  his  Majesty's 
letter,  as  an  alternative  to  the  old  rule  of  "full  communion 
with  some  church  among  us."  These  alternative  qualifica- 
tions included  a  certificate  signed  by  the  minister  of  the 
place  where  a  would-be  freeman  resided,  to  the  effect  that 
he  was  orthodox  in  religion  and  not  vicious  in  his  life.  As 
will  appear  later,  these  qualifications  were  possessed  by  so 
few  persons,  that  the  practical  effect  of  the  new  law  was 
to  leave  the  religious  qualifications  of  Massachusetts  voters 
where  they  were  before.1 

Soon  after  this,  the  royal  commission  above  referred  to 
made  an  investigation  of  the  governments  of  the  New  Eng- 
land colonies,  and,  among  other  things,  endeavored  to 
secure  a  certain  amount  of  uniformity  in  the  qualifications 
for  electors.  Their  instructions  authorized  them  to  see  that 

1  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  452  (1670). 

*  /UiV.,  pt.  ii,  117,  165,  166,  177;  Laws,  ed.  1660,  33;   ed.  1814,  117. 


t;  8  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

"persons  of  good  and  honest  conversations,  who  haue  lieued 
long  there  may  enjoy  all  the  priuledges  ....  as  to  choose 
....  into  places  of  government  ....  that  differences  of 
opinion  doe  not  lessen  their  charity  to  each  other,  since  char- 
ity is  a  fundamentall  in  religion."1  In  pursuance  of  their  mis- 
sion the  commissioners  wrote  to  the  general  court  of  Massa- 
chusetts. In  reply  they  received  a  copy  of  the  law  of  1664, 
already  mentioned.  This  was  unsatisfactory,  and  so  the 
Commission  addressed  the  following  letter  to  the  colony: 

"You  haue  so  tentered  the  king's  qualliffications  as  in  making 
him  only  who  paieth  ten  shillings  to  a  single  rate  to  be  of  compe- 
tent estate,  that  when  the  king  shall  be  enformd,  as  the  trueth  is, 
that  not  one  church  member  in  an  hundred  payes  so  much  &  yt  in 
a  toune  of  an  hundred  inhabitants,  scarse  three  such  men  are  to  be 
found,  wee  feare  that  the  king  will  rather  finde  himself  deluded  than 
satisfied  by  your  late  act."2 

The  court  did  not,  however,  pay  any  attention  to  this  re- 
monstrance, and  finally  the  commissioners  requested  that 
the  phrase  "  none  be  admitted  freemen  but  such  as  are 
members  of  some  of  the  churches  wlthin  the  limitts  of  this 
jurisdiction,  may  be  explained,  and  comphend  such  as  are 
members  of  ye  church  of  England."  The  writer  has  not 
been  able  to  find  that  even  this  was  done.8  Non-church 
members,  however,  could  still  vote  under  the  law  of  1662, 
though  they  were  required  to  pass  through  a  long  period 
of  probation.4  Under  the  Massachusetts  charter  of  1691 
there  was  no  rule  limiting  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  to 
church  members. 

New  Haven  also  insisted  upon  all  freemen  being  church 
members.  This  was  decided  at  the  first  meeting  of  the 

1 4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  192. 

2 1665,  ibid,,  205.  3  4  Idem,  212. 

4  1673,  ibid,,  562;   5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  385,  repealed  in  1682-3. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


59 


New  Haven  planters  in  I639,1  and  again  provided  for  by  the 
constitution  of  i643.2  Milford  had  let  in  six  free  burgesses 
who  were  not  members  of  "  approved  churches,"  and  after 
some  hesitation  the  general  court  seems  to  have  allowed 
these  six  to  retain  their  freedom  upon  being  cautioned,  but 
they  were  not  allowed  to  vote  for  magistrates,  "  neither  per- 
sonally nor  by  proxi."3  They  might  act  in  town-business 
"wherein  the  combination  was  not  interested,"  and  might 
vote  for  deputies  to  be  sent  to  the  general  court,  provided 
deputies  were  always  church  members.  The. royal  commis- 
sion of  1665  seems  to  have  addressed  the  governments  of 
both  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  on  the  subject  of  elec- 
toral qualifications.  In  the  former  colony  a  law  was  passed 
requiring  a  profession  of  Christianity,4  though  Roman  Cath- 
olics were  debarred ;  while  in  Connecticut  the  request  of  the 
commissioners  was  noted  in  the  records  in  language  similar 
to  that  used  in  the  first  letter  to  Massachusetts,  and  ac- 
companied only  by  the  simple  remark,  "  our  order  judged 
consonant."5  New  Plymouth  at  about  the  same  time,  and 
possibly  because  of  this  royal  interference  required  freemen 
to  be  orthodox  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion." 

In  the  South,  Locke's  constitution  provided  that  "no 
man  shall  be  permitted  to  be  a  freeman  of  Carolina  ....  that 
doth  not  acknowledge  a  God,  and  that  God  is  publicly  and 
solemnly  to  be  worshiped."7  In  South  Carolina  a  statute 

1 1  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  15.  2  Ibid.,  112. 

5  Ibid.,  no.  These  six  free  burgesses  of  Milford  were  specially  exempted  in 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution  which  required  church  membership  as  a  qualifi- 
cation for  voters.  Ibid.,  112. 

*2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  110-113;  J6  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1730, 
1744,4.  See  p.  63,  post. 

5  1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  439. 

6  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  5,  Brigham,  258. 
1  Art.  94,  I  Cooper,  South  Carolina  Laws,  43. 


60  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

enacted  in  1716  required  voters  to  profess  the  Christian  re- 
ligion.1 

The  foregoing  pages  include  all  the  qualifications  of  a 
positive  character,  so  far  as  the  writer  has  been  able  to  as- 
certain. Persons  professing  certain  religions  were  in  some 
cases  denied  the  privilege  of  voting.  For  instance,  Quakers 
were  strictly  debarred  from  becoming  freemen  in  Massachu- 
setts,2 and  in  Plymouth.3  In  Rhode  Island,  the  principles  of 
religious  toleration  were  practiced,  and  Quakers  were  ad- 
mitted as  freemen.  The  commissioners  of  the  United  Colo- 
nies tried  to  prevent  this,4  but  their  efforts  were  futile.  This 
is  shown  by  the  king's  commissioners,  who  reported  in  1665 
that  all  religions,  even  Quakers  and  Generalists,  were  ad- 
mitted to  this  colony.5 

Although  Quakers  were  not  in  terms  disfranchised  in  the 
other  colonies,  their  scruples  against  taking  oaths  often  de- 
barred them  from  voting.  In  order  to  permit  them  to  take 
part  in  elections,  clauses  enabling  Quakers  and  others  to 
affirm  or  declare  the  effect  of  the  oaths  required  of  voters6 
were  frequently  inserted  in  the  statutes.  "  Ranters  or  any 
such  corrupt  persons,"  "  manifest  opposers  of  the  true  wor- 
ship of  God,"  "manifest  encurragers "  of  Quakers  "soe 

1  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  xx;   2  Cooper,  683. 

2 4 Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  88;   Laws,  ed.  1814,  107. 

3  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  113.  4  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  374  etseq. 

5  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  128. 

6  So,  for  example,  New  York  ("  Quakers  or  one  of  Unitas  Fratrum,"  1 1  Geo. 
Ill,  chap.  1490,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620) ;   Rhode  Island  (20  Geo.  II,  Franklin 
ed.,  1752,  13);   New  Jersey  (12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Allinson's  Laws,  69,  Nevill's 
Laws,  142);   Pennsylvania  (4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  67);   Dela- 
ware (7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6 1  a,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  no,  Adams  ed.,  1797, 
147)  ;    Maryland  (here  Quakers  were  declared  liable  to  affirm  as  to  all  oaths  to  be 
taken  by  others,  but  they  were  not  to  be  debarred  for  not  swearing:   1724,  10 
Charles,  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  7,  Bacon's  Laws')  ;  Virginia  (n  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2, 
3  Hening,  172  ;    10  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  §  vii,4  Hening,  475);   South  Carolina  (Act 
1704,  no.  227,  §  v,  2  Cooper,  249). 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  6 1 

judged  by  the  court,"  could  not  be  freemen  in  Plymouth, 
although  this  colony  did  not  in  so  many  words  require  church 
membership.1  "  Apostates  from  the  fundamentals  of  reli- 
gion" could  be  disfranchised.2 

In  England  the  right  of  Quakers  to  vote  upon  declaring  the 
effect  of  the  elector's  oath  on  their  affirmation  was  recognized 
by  the  statute  of  10  Anne,  chap.  23,  §  8.  In  1690,  however, 
the  House  of  Commons  had  decided  that  the  refusal  to  take 
the  oath  rendered  Quakers  incapable  of  voting  for  knights  of 
the  shire.3  Just  before  yielding  to  the  royal  commands,  under 
the  pretense  of  permitting  non-church  members  to  become 
freemen,  Massachusetts,  in  furtherance  of  her  laudable  desire 
to  preserve  the  "good  and  honest  character"  of  her  freemen, 
had  passed  a  law  which  recounted  the  dangers  she  had  found 
by  experience  to  exist  within  her  boundaries  from  those  of  her 
inhabitants  who  were  "  enemies  to  all  government,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  who  will  not  yield  obedience  to  authority,  but 
make  it  much  of  their  religion  to  be  in  opposition  thereto," 
and  who  carried  out  their  designs  by  electing  wicked  per- 
sons, and  so  forth.  .  In  consequence  of  all  these  evils,  it  was 
enacted,  that  "  all  persons,  quakers  or  others,  which  refuse  to 
attend  upon  the  public  worship  of  God  established  here  ;  that 
all  such  persons,  whether  freemen  or  others,  acting  as  afore- 
said" should  be  incapable  of  voting  "during  their  obstinate 
persistency  in  such  wicked  ways  and  courses,  and  until  cer- 
tificate be  given  of  their  reformation."  This  law,  it  may  be 
remarked,  was  not  repealed  4  while  the  colonial  charter  re- 
mained in  force. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  rule  in  most  of  the  American  col- 
onies that  Roman  Catholics  could  not  vote.  They  were  spe- 

1  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  113.  2  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  Brigham,  258. 

8  IO  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  396. 

*  1663,  /^Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  88;  Laws,  ed   1814,  105. 


62  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

cifically  disfranchised  by  the  statutes  of  New  York '  and 
Maryland.2  In  these  two  governments  persons  suspected  of 
popish  beliefs  were  required,  before  being  permitted  to  vote, 
to  take  the  oaths  of  supremacy  and  allegiance,  and  to  sign 
the  test  and  association.  Popish  recusants  were  disfranchised 
in  New  York3  and  Virginia.*  An  early  law  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, which  was  repealed  immediately  after  it  was  enacted, 
required  freemen  to  be  Protestants.5  In  the  absence  of 
further  information  the  writer  does  not  feel  justified  in 
asserting  that  Roman  Catholics  were  debarred  from  voting 
in  all  the  colonies.  The  laws  just  cited  were  enacted  dur- 
ing the  eighteenth  century,  and  were  confined  to  four  pro- 
vinces. The  provisions  in  regard  to  church  membership 
in  Massachusetts  during  the  government  under  the  charter  of 
1628,  would  doubtless  have  excluded  Roman  Catholics. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  religion  of  the  Baltimores  and  the 
general  character  of  their  government  would  see'm  to  justify 
the  belief  that  before  the  royal  regime  commenced  in  1689 
papists  could  vote  in  Maryland.  On  general  principles  it 
would  seem  that  every  man  could  vote,  unless  he  was  specifi- 
cally debarred  by  statute.  Possibly  there  never  were  enough 
Roman  Catholics  outside  of  the  colonies  mentioned  to  make 
special  legislative  action  necessary.  Nothing  can  be  as- 
sumed from  the  analogy  of  England,  for  the  writer  has  there 
found  no  law  depriving  papists  of  the  suffrage.  They  could 
not,  it  is  true,  hold  office,6  possess,  inherit  or  purchase 

1  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  94,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  40.     See  also  Leisler's  illegal 
election  in  New  York  City,  "  by  Protestant  freeholders"  (3  New   York  Colonial 
Documents,  675),  which  took  place  ten  years  before  the  statute  of  13  Will.  III. 

2  3  Charles,  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  I, §3(171 8)  Bacon's  Laws;  "Profest  Papists." 

3  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  94,  §  I,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  40. 

4 "Recusants  convict,"   n   Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172;   "recusant,"  3 
Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  7,  7  Hening,  519. 

5  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396. 

6  Statute  30  Car.  II,  Stat.  2,  chap.  i. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  63 

land,1  and  they  were  forbidden  the  king's  or  queen's  pres- 
ence ;*  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  those  facts 
that  they  could  not  vote  for  members  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. They  might  not  have  been  permitted  to  exercise  their 
suffrage  if  they  had  tried,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  they 
were  disfranchised. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  discussion  in  regard  to  the 
statute  of  Rhode  Island  which  debarred  Roman  Catholics. 
The  first  printed  edition  of  the  laws,  published  in-  1719,  con- 
tained the  phrase  "  all  men  professing  Christianity  though  of 
differing  judgements  in  religious  affairs  (Roman  Catholicks 
only  excepted.y^  The  marginal  note  states  that  this  law  was 
passed  in  16  Charles  II.  As  a  matter  of  fact  neither  the 
original  copy  of  the  statute  enacted  at  that  time,  nor  the 
letter  from  the  King  of  England,  in  consequence  of  which 
that  law  was  passed,  contains  the  words  italicised  in  the  above 
extract.4  If  we  believe  that  the  inhabitants  of  Rhode  Island 
acted  consistently  with  their  second  charter,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  they  would  not  have  dared  to  pass  a  law  abridging 
the  exercise  of  a  particular  religion.  It  is  therefore  gener- 
ally believed,  at  the  present  time,  that  the  words  in  regard 
to  religious  te.sts  were  interpolated  at  some  later  date,  possi- 
bly not  till  1 7 19  when  they  first  appear  and  then  perhaps 
with  the  hope  of  currying  favor  with  the  home  government. 
The  clause  in  regard  to  Roman  Catholics  again  appeared 
in  the  editions  and  digests  published  in  1730,  1745  and 
1767.  As  the  law  was  not  repealed  until  1783,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  persons  professing  this  religion  could  not 
vote  during  the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  At 

1 1 1,  12,  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  4,  §  4;   I  Geo.  I,  Stat.  2,  chap.  55. 

*  30  Car.  II,  Stat.  2,  chap.  2.  s  Page  3. 

4  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  1 10-1 13. 


64  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

any  rate  the  founders  of  the  colony  seem  to  be  exculpated 
from  the  charge  of  inconsistency.1 

The  writer  has  found  in  two  colonies  evidence  tending  to 
prove  that  Jews  could  not  legally  vote.  The  first  authority 
is  the  decision  of  the  New  York  assembly,  when  it  set- 
tled the  contested  election  case  of  Philipse  vs.  Van  Home, 
in  1737.  The  language  employed  by  the  house  in  rendering 
its  decision,  indicates  that  Jews  were  debarred  from  voting 
in  England  also.2  The  petition  of  the  South  Carolina  as- 
semblymen, which  has  already  been  referred  to,  complains 
that  Jews  were  illegally  permitted  to  vote.3  The  absence  of 
further  mention  of  the  Jewish  race  is  perhaps  sufficiently 
accounted  for  by  the  conjecture  that  its  numbers  were  few 
in  the  American  colonies. 

§  5.  Age.  It  may  be  stated  as  a  general  proposition  that 
electors  were  required  to  be  twenty-one  years  of  age.*  That 

1  The  whole  subject  is  treated  exhaustively  in  S.  S.  Rider,  An  inquiry  concern- 
ing the  origin  of  the  clause  in  the  laws  of  Rhode  Island  (1719—1783)  disfranchising 
Roman  Catholics  (1889).  W.  E.Foster,  Esq.,  Librarian  of  the  Providence  Pub- 
lic Library,  furnishes  the  following  additional  references  on  the  subject :  Chalmers, 
Political  Annals,  276  et  seq.;  I  Arnold,  Rhode  Island,  488  et  seq.;  Walsh,  Appeal 
from  the  Judgments  of  Great  Britain,  430;  Proceedings  of  the  Rhode  Island  His- 
torical Society,  1872-3,  64;  2  Douglass,  Summary,  83;  3  Narrative  and  Critical 
History  of  America,  379-80;  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  36  note. 

2 "  Resolved  that  it  not  appearing  to  this  House  that  Persons  of  the  Jewish 
Religion  have  a  right  to  be  admitted  to  Vote  for  Parliament  men  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, it  is  the  unanimous  Opinion  of  this  House  that  they  ought  not  to  be  admitted 
to  vote  for  Representatives  in  this  colony.  Die  Veneris,  Sept.  23, 1 737.  I  Jour- 
nal New  York  Assembly,  712;  6  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  56. 

'Rivers,  Sorith  Carolina,  206,  453  etseq.,  462. 

4  Plymouth:  Laws,\d"j\,  Brigham,  258;  Connecticut:  I  Connecticut  Colonial 
Records,  382;  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  n;  Session  Laws,  40;  New  York: 
1 1  Will,  III,  chap.  74,  §  9,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28,  "  No  infant  under  twenty- 
one  shall  elect;"  Pennsylvania:  Frame  of  Government,  1696,  I  Pennsylvania 
Colonial  Records,  49,  Laws  1700,  chap.  28,  referred  to  in  Charter  of  Privileges; 
chap.  129, 4 Anne, Franklin ed.,  1742,67;  Delaware:  7  Geo.  II,  §  2,  Franklin  and 
Hall,  ed.  1752,  118;  Adams,  1797,  147;  Virginia:  " infants  under  21  "  disquali- 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  gtj 

minors  did  sometimes  vote,  though  illegally,  appears  from 
the  account  of  an  eye-witness  of  an  election  in  North  Carolina 
about  1 70S.1  In  England  by  the  statute  of  7  &  8  William 
III,  chap.  25,  §  8,  minors  were  forbidden  to  vote  for  members 
of  Parliament.  To  this  rule  there  are  very  few  exceptions. 
The  act  of  Massachusetts  which  provided  a  substitute  for 
the  one  single  qualification  of  church  membership  de- 
clared that  freemen  must  be  at  least  twenty-four  years  old.2 
This  was  copied  in  an  early  New  Hampshire  law.3  In 
Rhode  Island  the  only  statement  in  regard  to  an  age 
qualification  was  that  made  in  1665  in  reply  to  the  letter  of 
the  royal  commission.  After  mentioning  an  oath  to  be 
taken  by  freemen,  and  stating  that  if  they  did  not  take  it, 
they  could  not  vote  for  officers,  the  records  go  on  to  say 
that  the  oath  was  taken  by  all  housekeepers  aged  eighteen 
or  more.  This  does  not,  however,  necessarily  mean  that 
persons  of  that  age  could  vote.4  Plymouth  had  a  peculiar 
law  that  "  in  reference  to  military  concernments — noe  single 
persons  under  twenty  years  of  age  either  children  or  serv- 
ants shall  voate  as  to  that  accompt."5 

§  6.  Sexual.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  women's  rights 
party  in  the  colonies  ;  it  was  thus  not  found  necessary  to  ex- 
pressly debar  women  from  the  privilege  of  voting,  except  in 
Virginia.  In  that  colony  it  was  enacted  that  "  no  woman, 
sole  or  covert,"  even  though  a  freeholder,  should  have  a 

fied,  7  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  7,  7  Hening,  519;  North  Carolina:  33  Geo.  II, 
chap,  i,  §  4,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247;  South  Carolina:  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  20, 
2  Cooper,  683;  Act  1745,  no.  730,  3  Cooper,  657;  Georgia:  Act  June  9th,  1761. 
'Pollock's  Letter  Book,  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  696;  2  Hawks, 
History  of  North  Carolina,  511. 

2  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  117,  166;   ed.  Laws,  1814,  117. 
8  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396. 

4  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  112. 

5  Laws,  1667,  Brigham,  151. 


66  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

voice  in  the  election  of  burgesses.1  In  New  England  the 
restriction  of  the  suffrage  to  freemen  of  a  colony  would 
necessarily  debar  women.  In  a  statute  prescribing  the 
qualification  of  voters  from  the  town  of  Wilmington,  North 
Carolina,  the  word  man  was  several  times  used  in  describ- 
ing an  elector.2 

§  7.  Residential.  In  the  early  history  of  each  colony 
there  was,  as  has  already  been  explained,  very  little  definite- 
ness  in  regard  to  the  qualification  of  voters.  The  warrants  or 
the  royal  commissions  by  virtue  of  which  the  earlier  elections 
were  held  are  full  of  such  expressions  as  the  "freeholders  of 
the  province,"3  "the  freeholders  in  thy  bailiwick," 4  "free- 
holders of  your  county,"5  "  inhabitants," 6  or  "freemen  in- 
habiting" a  certain  place.7  Such  phrases,  vague  as  they 
may  seem,  undoubtedly  imply  residence  in  an  elector. 
The  writer  conceives  it  to  be  true,  though  he  cannot  show  a 
great  deal  of  authority,  that  residence  within  the  government, 
province  or  territory,  was  generally  required.8 

1  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172;   3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  7  Hening,  519. 

2  Act  1740,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  114. 

3  3  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  68. 

4  Pennsylvania,  1682,  i  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  234. 

5  N.  Y.,  1 683,  Introduction  to  Journal  of  Legislative  Council,  xiv. 

6  Virginia,  1621,  I    Hening,  no;  North    Carolina,  1667,  I    North    Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  80. 

7  Maryland  Archives,  i  Assembly,  27,  28. 

8  In  support  of  this  view  may  be  cited  the  expressions :  those  that  "  do  cohabit 
within  this  jurisdiction,"  as  expressed  in  the  first  American  constitution,  that  of 
Hartford  in  1638  (i  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21);   the  limitation  to  those 
"  cohabiting  upon  the  island"  at  Newport,  before  the  formation  of  the  Confed- 
eracy (i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  125),  and  "inhabitants  within  the  col- 
ony," afterward  (Franklin  ed.,  1730,  i);  "every  planter  and  inhabitant  dwelling 
and  residing  within  the  Province"  (East  Jersey  Concessions,  1683,  Learning  and 
Spicer,  153);   "inhabitants,  freeholders    or    proprietors  resident  upon  the  said 
province"  (West  Jersey   Concessions,  chap.  32,- Learning  and  Spicer,  385;  also 
Pennsylvania  Laws,  1682,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37) ;   "freemen  of 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  67 

'In  four  colonies  the  length  of  residence  within  the  govern- 
ment was  defined.  This  was  two  years  in  Pennsylvania,1  and 
Delaware,2  and  six  months  in  Georgia.3  In  North  Carolina, 
a  full  year's  residence  in  the  government  was  at  one  time 
necessary,4  but  before  1734  this  was  reduced  to  six  months' 
residence  within  the  precinct.5  Other  provinces  had  more 
specific  provisions  on  this  subject.  Thus,  in  Rhode  Island, 
no  person  could  vote  except  in  the  town  where  he  lived,6  and 
New  Jersey  under  the  royal  government,  required  a  residence 
of  one  whole  year  in  the  county,  city,  or  town,7  where  the  voter 
was  polled.  In  South  Carolina  the  necessity  for  a  period  of 
residence  as  a  qualification  for  voters  seems  to  have  been  fully 
appreciated.  In  1693,  the  proprietors  disallowed  an  act  giv- 
ing the  privilege  of  electing  representatives  to  persons  worth 
£10.  One  of  the  re'asons  for  their  action  was  because  "these 
act  not  mentioning  how  long  any  person  worth  ten  pounds 
must  have  been  an  Inhabitant  of  the  Country  before  he  be 
admitted  to  vote  for  members  of  the  assembly,  it  is  so  loose 
that  by  this  act,  all  the  Pyrates  that  were  in  the  Shipp 
that  had  been  pilundering  on  the  Red  Sea  had  been  quali- 
fied to  vote  for  representatives,  which  being  of  dangerous 

this  province"  {Maryland  Archives,  3  Assembly,  60) ;  "  settled  inhabitants  in 
this  jurisdiction"  as  used  in  Massachusetts  (4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,^. 
ii,  117,  167;  Laws  ed.,  1814,  117  [also  in  Plymouth,  Laws,  1667,  Brigham, 
151])  and  New  Hampshire  (i  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396). 

1  Frame  of  Government  of  1696,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  149;  Laws 
1700,  chap.  28,  referred  to  in  Charter  of  Privileges;  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin 
ed.,  1742,  67. 

2  7  Ceo.  II,  chap.  6ia;   Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;   Adams,  1797,  147. 
"Act  June  gth,  1761. 

*  Laws,  1715,  chap.  10;   2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

5 8  Geo.  II,  chap.  2;  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 
For  the  first  act  see  appendix  B. 

6  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

7  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 


68  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

consequence  to  the  Inhabitants  we  have  dissented."1  In 
1704  a  personal  residence  in  the  county  and  precinct 
for  three  months  next  preceding  the  date  of  the  writs  for 
the  election  was  required,2  possibly  with  a  view  of  remedy- 
ing the  abuses  at  a  recent  election,  when  it  is  said,  strangers 
and  sailors  had  been  allowed  to  vote.3  Twelve  years  later 
this  was  replaced  by  six  months'  residence  in  the  province  and 
parish,*  and  seafaring  and  other  transient  men,  not  owning 
freeholds  or  liable  to  pay  taxes  on  personal  property,  were 
debarred  from  voting.  In  1721  the  time  of  residence  was 
finally  fixed  at  one  year  within  the  county.5  In  New  York 
and  Virginia  the  laws  appear  to  be  silent  as  to  general  resi- 
dence qualifications,  but  persons  voting  in  New  York  City 
and  Albany  in  their  capacity  of  freemen  must  have  resided 
there  three  months,*  while  in  Williamsburg,  Virginia,  holders 
of  the  town  franchise  must  have  had  an  actual  residence  of 
twelve  months.7  The  former  provision  was  probably  aimed 
at  the  practice,  which  seems  to  have  existed,  of  giving  free- 
doms to  sailors  and  other  non-residents,  in  order  to  let  them 
vote  for  assemblymen.3  In  some  colonies  the  elector  voted 
solely  by  virtue  of  his  freehold,  and  in  such  cases  residence 
was  not  considered  of  any  importance.  Thus  New  Hamp- 
shire passed  a  law  enabling  property  holders,  though  non- 

1  April  loth,  1693,  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  437.     This  is  probably  the 
act  mentioned  in  2  Cooper,  73,  act  no.  78,  of  which  it  is  stated  the  original  is  lost; 
this  act  was,  however,  to  be  temporary. 

2  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  149. 

3  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  462,  453  et  seq. 

*  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  xx,  2  Cooper,  683;  Act  1717,  no.  373,  §§  i,  ii,  3  Cooper,  2. 

5  Act  1721,  no.  446,  §  iii,  3  Cooper,  135. 

6  ii  Will. Ill,  chap.  74,  §  10,  Van  Schaack's Laws,  28. 

7  15  Geo.  II,  chap.  26,  §11,5  Hening,  204.    The  act  of  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hen- 
ing,  236,  required  an  elector  to  be  a  resident  of  the  county  in  which  he  voted. 

*  4  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  127-9. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


69 


residents,  to  vote,1  and  in  New  York  a  complaint  against 
the  sheriffs  for  conspiring  to  hold  all  the  elections  on  the 
same  day,  so  as  to  prevent  freeholders  having  estates  in 
several  counties  from  voting  in  each,  shows  that  it  was  a 
common  practice  for  non-resident  freeholders  to  exercise 
the  elective  franchise.2  In  1737  this  was  decided  by  the 
legislature  in  the  contested  election  case  of  Philipse  vs.  Van 
Home  to  be  a  legal  usage.3  The  writer  has  found  no  trace 
of  a  system  of  plural  voting  in  any  other  colony. 

In  England  the  question  of  residence  was  treated  as  early 
as  1413,  by  the  statute  of  i  Henry  V,  chap  I,  (3).  This 
enacted  that  "  the  knights  and  esquires  and  others  which 
shall  be  choosers  of  these  knights  of  the  shires,  be  also  resi- 
dent within  the  same  shires  in  manner  and  form  as  afore- 
said ;"  that  is,  "at  the  day  of  the  date  of  the  writ  of  the 
summons  of  the  parliament." +  The  laws  requiring  electors 
to  reside  within  the  counties  in  which  their  freeholds  were 
situated,  were  repealed  in  1774.* 

§  8.  Property.  A.  THE  COUNTY  FRANCHISE.  The  property 
qualification  in  the  American  colonies  is  a  subject  of  great 
importance.  The  qualifications  mentioned  in  the  preced- 
ing sections  were  for  the  most  part  confined  to  particular 
portions  of  the  continent.  For  example,  the  religious 

1  i  Geo.  II,  chap.  107,  §  2;  Fowle  ed.,  1771,  166. 

*4  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  127-9. 

8  6  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  56. 

4Troward,  Elections,  London,  1790,  5;  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elec- 
tions, 109,  quotes  this  statute  and  uses  the  word  chosen  instead  of  choosers ;  Gneist, 
History  of  the  English  Constitution,  vol.  ii,  chap.  25,  5  (p.  35),  says  that  by  this 
act  electors  were  to  be  resident  in  the  county.  This  seems  more  reasonable  as  the 
word  chosen  would  merely  repeat  another  clause  of  the  same  act  in  slightly  different 
language.  The  question  was,  however,  settled  in  favor  of  residence  within  the 
county  where  the  freehold  lay,  by  the  statutes  of  8  Henry  VI,  chap.  7,  and  10 
Henry  VI,  chap.  2. 

5  Statute  14  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  58. 


70  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

and  moral  qualifications,  which  were  predominant  during 
the  seventeenth  century,  were  practically  limited  to  the 
colonies  most  directly  under  Puritan  influence.  When 
Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  lost  their  independent  status 
by  their  union  under  the  charter  of  1691  property  replaced 
religion  as  the  main  test  of  a  man's  right  to  vote.  In 
every  province,  whether  royal  or  proprietary,  there  was 
introduced,  beginning  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  some  sort  of  property  qualification,  and  the  tend- 
ency during  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  was 
toward  a  certain  amount  of  uniformity  in  this  respect 
throughout  the  colonies.  In  Rhode  Island  there  were,  as 
we  shall  see,  violent  fluctuations  in  the  property  qualifica- 
tion, and  at  one  time  the  enormous  sum  of  four  hundred 
pounds  or  twenty  pounds  a  year,  was  required. 

In  considering  the  history  of  the  property  qualification  in 
this  country  it  will  be  well  to  examine  at  the  outset  the 
development  in  the  oldest  of  the  colonies,  namely,  Virginia. 
By  the  constitution  and  ordinance  of  1621,  as  issued  by  the 
treasurer  and  company  in  England,  all  inhabitants  of  the 
colony  were  to  have  a  vote  in  the  choice  of  burgesses.1 
For  upwards  of  thirty  years  this  was  the  rule,  until  in  1655 
a  law  was  passed  limiting  the  franchise  to  "  all  housekeepers, 
whether  ffreeholders,  leaseholders  or  otherwise  tenants."  '2 
But  in  less  than  a  year  this  statute  was  repealed,  because, 
said  the  house  of  burgesses,  "we  conceive  it  something 
hard  and  unagreeable  to  reason  that  any  persons  shall 
pay  equall  taxes  and  yet  have  no  votes  in  elections."3 
It  was  not  long,  however,  before  the  harshness  of  this  rule 
was  lost  sight  of,  and  the  house  of  burgesses  in  1670  dis- 

1  Art.  iv,  I  Hening,  112. 

'2  5-6  Commonwealth,  Act  vii,  I  Hening,  411. 

3  6  Commonwealth^  Act  xvi,  I  Hening,  403. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  ji 

covered  that  the  voting  "  of  all  persons,  who  haveing  served 
their  tyme  are  firemen  of  this  country,  who  haveing  little 
interest  in  the  country  doe  oftner  make  tumults  at  the 
election  to  the  disturbance  of  his  majesties  peace,  then  by 
their  discretions  in  their  votes  provide  for  the  conservasion 
thereof,  by  making  choyce  of  persons  fitly  qualifyed  for  so 
greate  a  trust."  Besides  this,  they  remembered  that  "  the 
lawes  of  England  grant  a  voice  in  such  election  only  to 
such  as  by  their  estates,  real  or  personall  have  interest 
enough  to  tye  them  to  the  endeavour  of  the  publique 
good."  Therefore,  they  enacted  that  only  "  ffreeholders 
and  house  keepers  who  are  answerable  to  the  publique  for 
the  levies,  shall  hereafter  have  a  voice  in  the  election  of  any 
burgess  in  this  country."1  That  the  people  did  not  look 
with  unmixed  satisfaction  upon  this  limitation  of  tjie  suffrage 
is  shown  by  the  action  of  the  assembly  called  during 
Bacon's  revolt  in  1676,  which  repealed  the  law  of  22  Charles 
II,  and  admitted  all  freemen  to  a  share  in  the  choice  of 
burgesses,2  When  the  rebellion  was  put  down  th'is  act  was 
repealed,  and  as  far  as  Virginia  was  concerned,  non-free- 
holders were  permanently  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  voting. 
Turning  now  to  England,  we  find  that  the  history  of  the 
county  franchise,  which  corresponds  to  what  we  are  at  pres- 
ent considering  in  the  American  colonies,  was  similar  to  the 
development  in  Virginia.  We  have  the  authority  of  that 
learned  scholar,  William  Prynne,  for  the  statement  that  origi- 
nally "  every  inhabitant  and  commoner  in  each  county  had 
a  voyce  in  the  election  of  knights  whether  he  were  freeholder 
or  not,  or  had  a  freehold  only  of  one  penny,  sixpence  or 
twejvepence  by  the  year."3  But  early  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury the  famous  statutes  of  8  Henry  VI,  chap.  7,  and  10 
Henry  VI,  chap.  2,*  were  enacted,  and  in  accordance  with 

1  22  Car.  II,  Act  iii,  2  Hening,  220.  *  2  Hairing,  425.  • 

3  £revia  Parliamentaria  JRediviva,  187.  *  143°  and  1432. 


7  2  'HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  CTIOA'S 

their  provisions  the  elective  franchise  was  limited  to  holders 
of  "free  land  or  tenement  to  the  value  of  forty  shillings  by 
the  year,  at  the  least,  above  all  charges."  Notwithstanding 
the  statement  in  the  preamble  of  the  Virginia  statute'  just 
quoted,  a  freehold  was  necessary  to  qualify  county  electors 
in  England  all  through  the  colonial  period,  and  no  amount 
of  personal  property  would  serve  as  a  substitute. 

In  America  the  forty  shilling  freehold  franchise  was  recog- 
nized in  Massachusetts  by  the  charter1  of  1691,  as  well  as  in 
Rhode  Island,2  and  Connecticut.3  In  all  of  these  colonies, 
however,  the  forty  shilling  freehold  was  merely  an 
alternative  qualification.  In  New  England,  as  in  Virginia, 
there  was  no  property  qualification  required  at  first,  and 
the  writer  is  of  the  opinion  that  with  the  possible  exception 
of  Connecticut  its  introduction  was  due  solely  to  the 
interference  of  the  Crown,  already  mentioned  under  the 
subject  of  religious  qualifications.4  In  support  of  this 
view  it  can  be  shown  that  upon  receipt  of  the  royal 
mandate  that  electors  should  be  "men  of  competent  es- 
tates"5 some  sort  of  property  qualification  was  adopted  or 
declared  by  the  general  courts  of  the  four  colonies  affected. 
Thus  Plymouth*5  allowed  holders  of  "  twenty  pounds  rate- 
able estate,  at  the  least,  in  the  government"  to  be  made  free- 
men, and  Massachusetts  embodied  in  the  qualifications 
offered  as  an  alternative  to  church  membership,  a  clause 
giving  the  suffrage  to  freeholders,  "  for  their  own  proper  es- 
tate (without  heads  of  persons),  rateable  to  the  country  in  a 
single  country  rate,  after  the  usual  manner  of  valuation  in  the 

1  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  n. 

S4  Geo.  I,  Fianklin  ed.,  1730,  131;   Kail,  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78.  • 

3  Session  Laws,  40.  4  See  p.  57  ante. 

5  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  166;   2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Rec- 
ords, no;    I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  439. 

6  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  §  5,  Brigham,  258. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 


73 


place  where  they  live  to  the  full  value  of  ten  shillings,"  and 
who  were  householders  as  well.1  When  these  two  colonies 
were  united  the  qualification  of  voters  was  fixed  by  the 
charter  in  the  following  language : 

"Noe  Freeholder  or  other  person  shall  have  a  vote  in  the  Eleccon 
of  Members  to  serve  in  any  Create  and  General  Court  or  Assembly 
to  be  held  as  aforesaid  who  at  the  time  of  such  Eleccon  shall  not 
have  an  estate  of  freehold  in  Land  within  Our  said  Province  or  Terri- 
tory to  the  value  of  Forty  Shillings  per  Annu  at  the  least,  or  other 
estate  to  the  value  of  Forty  pounds  SterF."2 

In  accordance  with  the  proposals  of  the  crown,  Rhode  Is- 
land in  1665  enacted  simply  that  electors  should  be  men  of 
"  competent  estates."3  The  property  qualification  remained 
thus  indefinite  until  1723  when  it  was  decided  that  a  "  freeman 
must  be  a  freeholder  of  Lands  Tenements  or  Hereditaments 
in  such  towns  where  he  shall  be  admitted  free,  of  the  value 
of  one  hundred  pounds  or  to  the  value  of  40  shillings  per  a."' 
In  1730  the  requirement  was  raised  to  two  hundred  pounds 
or  ten  pounds  a  year,5  and  in  1747  it  was  still  further  increased 
to  four  hundred  pounds  or  twenty  pounds  a  year.6  In  1767 
the  real  estate  of  a  freeman  must  be  worth  forty  pounds  or 

1  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  117,  167;   Laws,  ed.  1814,  117. 

3 1  Ames  and  Goodell,  II.  There  has  been  considerable  doubt  as  to  whether 
forty  or  fifty  pounds  is  the  correct  version  of  the  last  clause.  It  appears  from  the 
report  of  the  Attorney  General  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Colonial  agents,  as  con- 
tained in  the  minutes  of  the  Plantations  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  that  fifty 
is  correct,  but  it  is  said  that  the  copy  of  the  charter  sent  to  Massschusetts  con- 
tained the  word  forty.  The  Boston  government  seems  to  have  acted  on  the  latter 
assumption  and  the  home  government  on  the  former,  for  it  disallowed  several  laws 
because  they  contained  the  word  forty,  which  was  the  qualification  in  New  York 
and  in  Rhode  Island.  In  the  printed  editions  of  the  acts,  the  word  forty  is  men- 
tioned three  times,  and  fifty  occurs  four  times.  See  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  249, 
282,315,363. 

3  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  1 1 2.         49  Geo.  I,  Franklin  ed.,  1730,  131. 

5  3  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1 730,  206.  6  20  Geo.  II.,  Franklin  ed.,  1 752, 1 3. 


74. 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


else  must  bring  in  a  yearly  rental  of  forty  shillings.1 
Rhode  Island  was  .the  only  American  colony  which  per- 
mitted a  man  to  vote  by  virtue  of  his  birth.  This  franchise 
was  given  in  1723  to  the  eldest  son  of  a  freeman,2  and  it 
seems  to  have  existed  for  a  number  of  years.  If  a  freeman, 
who  was  such  by  virtue  of  his  being  the  eldest  son  of  a  free- 
holder qualified  to  vote,  died  with  issue,  the  second  son  of 
the  freeholder  was  not  to  be  made  a  freeman  because  of  his 
father's  freehold.3  This  franchise  was  doubtless  derived  from 
the  English  rule  permitting  the  heir  apparent  of  a  peer  or  of 
a  freeman  to  vote.4 

In  1658,  just  before  the  royal  interference,  Connecticut  had 
prescribed  a  qualification  of  thirty  pounds  proper  personal 
estate,  (those  who  had  held  office  were  exempt  from  this  quali- 
fication,) and  in  1662  had  changed  this  to  "  twenty  pounds  es- 
tate beside  the  person  in  the  list  of  estate,"  so  that  the  request 
of  the  royal  commissioners  was  dismissed  with  the  words  "  our 
order  judged  consonant."5  If  the  qualification  of  1662  was 
meant  to  be  realty — and  in  the  light  of  a  subsequent  enact- 
ment,6 the  writer  believes  it  was  not — the  "  order  "  of  Connec- 
ticut could  hardly  be  "consonant."  The  Cambridge  edition 
of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut  speaks  of  the  property  qualifica- 
tions of  freemen  as  being  "willed  by  our  Royal  Soveraign  " 
to  be  "twenty  pownd  Estate  in  Housing  or  Land,  besides 
their  personal  Estate  in  the  Common  List."7  In  1675  a 
statute  provided  that  in  addition  to  "  these  other  qualifications 

1  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

2 9  Geo.  I,  Franklin  ed.,   1730,131;   also  209,  252;   Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title 
Elections,  78. 

3  Hall's  Code,  Title  Elections,  78. 

4  See    Troward,  Eleclions,  76,  1 67 ;    Statutes  9    Anne,  chap.  5 ;   3   Geo.  Ill, 
chap.  15. 

5 1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  331,  389,  439. 

6  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  253.  7  Title  Freemen,  26. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  75 

expressed  in  the  former  law"  a  freeman  must  have  in  the  "  List 
of  Estates  ten  pownd  estate  in  land  beside  their  personal  es- 
tate."1 In  1689*  a  freehold  estate  of  forty  shillings  in  county 
pay  was  prescribed,  while  the  session  laws  finally  placed  the 
property  qualification  at  a  "  freehold  estate  to  the  value  of 
forty  shillings  per  an.,  or  forty  pounds  personal  estate."3 
The  first  provision  in  regard  to  property  qualifications  in 
New  Hampshire  is  found  in  a  law  passed  by  the  first  Assem- 
bly, but  soon  repealed.  This  simply  provided  for  "  a  ratable 
estate  of  twenty  pounds  without  heads  of  persons."*  An  act 
of  1691  probably  copied  the  Massachusetts  charter  when  it 
required  voters  to  be  freeholders  of  the  value  of  forty  pounds 
a  year,  or  worth  fifty  pounds  in  personal  estate.5  After  1729 
only  freeholders  with  an  estate  of  fifty  pounds  in  the  town,  parish 
or  precinct  in  which  they  voted  could  elect  representatives.6 
In  New  York  the  first  Charter  of  Liberties  declared  that 
all  freeholders  in  the  province  had  a  voice  in  the  election  of 
representatives,  and  a  freeholder  was  defined  to  be  "  every 
one  who  is  so  understood  according  to  the  laws  of  England."7 
The  second  charter  explained  that  a  freeholder  was  a  person 
who  had  forty  shillings  a  year  in  freehold."  A  later  general 
act  limited  the  county  franchise  to  persons  holding  "  Land 
or  Tenements,  improved  to  the  Value  of  Forty  pounds  in 
Freehold,  free  from  all  encumbrances."9 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  more  southern  colonies  we 

12  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  253.  The  royal  proposals  as  expressed  to 
Massachusetts  certainly  required  voters  to  be  freeholders,  and  the  quotation  just 
given  from  the  Cambridge  edition  of  the  laws  bears  out  this  view.  The  language 
of  the  law  of  1675  seems  to  imply  that  no  estate  in  land  had  been  required  before 
this  time.  So,  on  the  whole,  the  meaning  of  the  earlier  enactments  seems  doubtful. 

*4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  n.     3  Session  Laws,  40. 

4 1680,  I  Provincial  Papers,  396.  5  n  Will.  Ill,  3  Provincial  Papers,  216. 

6  i  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  107,  Fowle  ed.,  1761,  142;   ed.  1771, 166. 

7  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  659.      "Bradford  ed.,  1710,  I. 
s  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  I,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 


76  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

find  that  the  general  criterion  for  determining  the  amount  of 
the  real  estate  qualification  was  not  so  much  its  value  as  its 
area.  So  in  East  Jersey,1  Pennsylvania,2  Delaware,3  Mary- 
land,4 North  Carolina,5  and  Georgia,6  fifty  acres  was  the  re- 
quired amount  of  land.  Of  these  fifty  acres  East  Jersey  re- 
quired ten  acres  to  be  cultivated ;  in  Pennsylvania  the 
same  number  must  have  been  "  seated  and  cleared,"  though 
after  1700  twelve  acres  must  be  "cleared  an<J  improved;"7 
while  Delaware  required  the  whole  tract  of  fifty  to  be  cleared.3 
In  Pennsylvania  the  voter,  instead  of  having  land,  might  be 
worth  "fifty  pounds  lawful  money  of  the  government,  clear 
estate."9  In  Delaware,'0  and  also  in  Maryland,  a  personal  es- 
tate of  forty  pounds  value  would  enfranchise  an  elector.11  The 
laws  made  by  Penn  in  England  offered  the  privilege  of  voting 
to  every  purchaser  of  one  hundred  acres  of  land  or  upwards, 
his  heirs  and  assigns ;  to  every  person  paying  his  passage 
and  taking  up  one  hundred  acres  of  land  at  a  penny  an  acre 
and  putting  ten  of  them  under  cultivation  ;  and  also  to  every 

1  Concessions,  1683,  iii,  Learning  and  Spicer,  153,  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  397. 

2  Frame  of  Government,  1696,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  49. 

3  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;  Adams,  1797,  147. 

4  Act  1678,  Maryland Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Ac  is  of  the  Assembly,  60;  4 
Anne,  chap.  35;    1715,  chap.  42,  Baskett  ed.,  1723,  131. 

5  8  Geo.  II,  chap.  2;  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  i,§  iii;  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,177. 

6  Ace  June  9th,  1761. 

7 1700,  chap.  28,  referred  to  in  charter  of  1701;  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin 
ed.,  1742,67. 

8  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Hall,  1752,  118;    Adams,  147. 

9  Frame   of  Government,   1696,  I    Pennsylvania   Colonial  Records,  49;    1700, 
chap.  28,  referred  to  in  Charter  of  Privileges,  1701,  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, 444,  "Lawful  money  of  this  province;"  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed., 
1742,  67;   6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  323. 

107  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  §  2,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  118;   Adams,  1797,  147. 
11  Act  1678,  Afaryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  the  Assembly,  60;  2 
Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  II,  §  3,  Bacon's  Laws. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


77 


person  who  had  been  a  servant  or  a  bondsman  and  was  free 
by  his  service  and  had  taken  up  his  fifty  acres  of  land  and 
cultivated  ten  of  them.1  In  New  Jersey  under  the  royal 
government,  a  freeholder  having  one  hundred  acres  of  land 
in  his  own  right,  or  worth  fifty  pounds  current  money  of  the 
province  in  real  and  personal  estate,  could  vote.* 

Virginia  had  limited  the  elective  franchise  to  freeholders, 
in  1 670,' but  in  1736  on  account  of  the  practice  of  conveying 
"small  and  inconsiderable  parcels  of  land  upon  feigned 
considerations,"  it  was  found  necessary  to  define  a  free- 
hold. Accordingly  the  amount  of  land  to  be  possessed 
by  an  elector  was  fixed  at  one  hundred  acres,  if  uninhabited, 
or  twenty-five  acres  with  a  house  and  a  plantation.4  In  case 
the  uninhabited  estate  lay  in  two  or  more  counties  the 
owner  could  vote  in  the  county  where  the  greater  part  was 
situated,  though  that  part  might  not  amount  in  itself  to  a 
hundred  acres.  Some  years  afterward  it  was  enacted  that 
fifty  unsettled  acres  would  qualify  a  freeholder.  There  must 
have  been  a  house  twelve  feet  square  on  the  settled  planta- 
tion of  twenty-five  acres,  and  if  the  estate  was  in  several 
counties  the  elector  could  vote  only  in  that  county  in  which 
the  house  was  situated.5  All  sorts  of  property  qualifications 
seem  to  have  been  required  at  different  times  in  South  Caro- 
lina. Locke's  constitution  provided  that  only  freeholders 
could  vote  and  that  these  must  possess  fifty  acres.6  In  1692 
an  act  was  passed  permitting  all  persons  who  would  swear 
that  they  were  worth  ten  pounds  to  vote  for  members  of  the 
assembly.  The  proprietors  disallowed  this,  because  they 

1  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37. 

1  7  Anne,  chap.  4,  §  I,  Nevill's  Laws,  7;  Allinson's  Laws,  6.    "  Current  money 
of  Great  Britain,"  8  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws,  306. 
'  22  Car.  II,  Act  iii,  2Hening,  280.     See  page  71  ante. 
*  10  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  §  n,  4  Hening,  475. 
4  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  4,  7  Hening,  519.  6  Art  72, 1  Cooper,  43. 


7 8  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

were  of  opinion  that  only  freeholders  should  be  permitted  to 
vote.1  In  1704  the  qualification  of  an  elector  was  a  freehold 
of  fifty  acres  or  else  ten  pounds  in  money,  goods,  chattels  or 
•  rents.2  Twelve  years  afterwards  per'sonal  property  to  the 
value  of  thirty  pounds  "  current  money  of  this  province  " 
would  qualify  a  voter.3  In  1717  the  franchise  was  given  to 
holders  of  fifty  acres  in  land,  and  to  persons  liable  to  pay 
taxes  for  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds.4  This  personal  qualifica- 
tion was  changed  in  1721  to  a  tax  of  twenty  shillings  for  the 
year  of  the  election  or  the  year  preceding.5  In  1745  a  free- 
hold estate  in  a  settled  plantation  or  three  hundred  acres 
unsettled  for  which  taxes  had  been  paid  the  previous  year 
was  demanded,6  while  in  1759  only  one  hundred  acres  were 
required,  or  in  lieu  of  this,  the  payment  of  a  tax  of  ten 
shillings  "proclamation  money"7  during  the  preceding  year. 
The  rule  requiring  the  payment  of  taxes  on  the  land  for  the 
previous- year  was  probably  borrowed  from  England  where 
it  had  been  made  a  condition  precedent  to  the  exercise  of 
the  forty  shilling  franchise.8 

At  the  beginning  of  this  section  it  was  noted  that  the 
connty  franchise  in  England  was  confined  to  freeholders. 
Governor  Berkeley  of  Virginia  was  instructed  in  1676  to 
"  take  care  that  the  members  of  the  assembly  be  elected 
only  by  freeholders  as  being  more  agreeable  to  the  custom 
of  England  to  which  you  are  as  nigh  as  conveniently  you 
can  to  conform  yourselfe."9  We  have  seen  that  this  had 

1  Rivers,  History  of  South  Carolina,  Appendix  437.     There  was  an  act  on  this 
subject  in  1696—7,  of  which  the  writer  has  been  unable  to  procure  a  copy.     See  2 
Cooper,  130. 

2  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  249.  3  Act  1716,  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683. 
*  Act  1717,  no.  373,  3  Cooper,  2.  5  Act  1721,  no-446,  3  Cooper,  135. 

6  Act  1745,  no.  730,  2  Cooper,  657.  1  33  Geo.  II,  no.  885,  4  Cooper,  98. 

8  10  Anne,  chap.  23;   18  Geo.  II,  chap.  18;  20  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  17. 

9  2  Hening,  425. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  79 

been  done  in  Virginia  even  before  he  arrived.  We  have  also 
found  that  but  four  other  colonies,  viz. :  Rhode  Island,  New 
York,  North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  confined  the  elective  fran- 
chise strictly  to  freeholders.  In  two  of  the  constitutions  which 
never  had  a  real  influence  on  the  colonies  for  which  they  were 
framed,  viz.  :  that  of  East  Jersey  and  that  of  the  Carolinas, 
we  have  seen  that  strict  freehold  suffrage  was  provided  for. 
New  Hampshire  ultimately  seems  to  have  debarred  all  but 
freeholders.  Everywhere  else,  though  freeholders  could  al- 
ways vote  if  they  pleased,  there  was  some  provision  permit- 
ting the  holder  of  a  certain  amount  of  property,  personal  in 
its  nature  and  not  always  of  great  value,  to  cast  a  vote 
counting  for  just  as  much  as  that  of  the  largest  freeholder. 
Though  this  was  the  sign  of  a  democratic  tendency  opposed 
to  the  landed  interests  which  predominated  in  England,  the 
British  crown  seems  to  have  permitted  it,  despite  the  protests 
that  were  raised.  For  example,  when  Lord  Cornbury  took 
possession  of  New  Jersey,  he  was  instructed  by  the  royal 
government,  at  the  special  request  of  the  retiring  proprie- 
tors, to  have  the  members  of  the  assembly  from  the  counties 
chosen  by  freeholders.1  Some  years  after  his  arrival  an  act 
was  passed  which  after  stating  that  the  instructions'  of  Lord 
Cornbury  were  inconvenient,  proceeded  to  lay  down  a 
money  qualification  for  electors.2  This  action  drew  forth  a 
spirited  protest  from  the  late  proprietors. 

"For  certainly,"  they  petitioned  the  Crown,  "those  persons  are 
fittest  to  be  intrusted  with  choosing  and  being  Legislators  who  have 
a  fixed  valuable  and  permanent  interest  in  Lands,  and  must  stand 
and  fall  with  their  country  ;  but  money  is  an  uncertain  Interest  and 
if  it  be  admitted  a  qualification  equal  to  Land,  an  assembly  may  be 
packed  of  Strangers  and  Beggars  who  will  have  little  regard  to  the 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  599,  623. 

1  7  Anne,  chap.  4,  I ;  Nevill's  Laws,  7,  Allinson's  Laws,  6. 


8o  HIST  OR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

Good  of  the  Country  from  whence  they  can  remove  at  Pleasure  and 
may  oppress  the  Landed  Man  with  heavy  Taxes." ' 

This  provision,  they  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  was  con- 
trary to  the  instructions  of  the  governor, 

"  Which  was  intended  to  be  a  standing  and  unalterable  part  of  the 
constitution  as  most  agreeable  to  the  constitution  of  England  where 
the  electors  of  knights  by  the  counties  must  have  a  certain  fixed  free- 
hold— but  the  alteration  now  made  was  intended  to  put  the  election 
of  representatives  into  the  meanest  of  the  people,  who  being  impa 
tient  of  any  superior  will  never  fail  to  choose  such  from  among  them- 
selves, as  may  oppress  and  destroy  our  rights."''1 

That  the  objectionable  qualification  was  not  repealed  is 
shown  by  an  act  passed  in  I/67,3  which  reaffirmed  the  rule 
laid  down  by  the  statute  of  7  Anne. 

i )  Class  of  Estate  Required.  The  question  as  to  what 
class  of  estate  would  be  necessary  to  qualify  an  elector  seems 
to  have  arisen  only  in  those  colonies  which  limited  the  county 
franchise  strictly  to  freeholders.  The  end  sought  by  the 
rules  that  were  adopted  appears  to  have  been  to  prevent  one 
and  the  same  estate  from  qualifying  two  different  persons. 
Thus  in  Rhode  Island  an  estate  in  fee  simple,  fee  tail,  or 
an  estate  in  reversion  which  qualified  no  other  person,  or  an 
estate  for  one's  own  life,  was  sufficient.  An  admission  as 
freeman  in  right  of  a  wife's  dower,  or  an  estate  in  reversion 
which  qualified  another  person,  or  a  house  on  lands  not  be- 
longing in  fee  simple,  fee  tail,  or  for  life,  but  belonging  to 
another,  was  null  and  void.4  The  other  colonies  were  more 
liberal.  Thus  in  New  York5  and  Virginia8  an  estate  for  one's 
own  life  or  for  the  life  of  his  wife  would  qualify  an  elector. 
North  Carolina  also  permitted  a  man  to  vote  in  right  of  a 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  658.  2  Smith,  History  of  New  Jersey,  341. 

3  8  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws,  306.          *  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

5  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  94,  §  2,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  40. 

6  Resolution  of  the  House  of  Burgesses,  36  Car.  II,  3  Hening,  26. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  8 1 

life  estate,1  while  both  this  colony2  and  Virginia3  declared 
that  an  estate  for  the  life  of  anothe/,  or  an  estate  of  greater 
dignity,  was  sufficient.4  The  privilege  of  voting  in  right  of 
an  estate  for  the  life  of  one's  wife  was  recognized  also  in 
England,  where  it  was  enacted  that  a  man  might  vote  in 
right  of  his  wife's  dower  from  a  former  husband,  even 
though  the  dower  had  not  been  assigned  or  set  out  by 
metes  and  bounds.5  New  York  required  freeholds  to  be 
free  from  all  encumbrance,6  although  an  exception  seems  to 
have  been  recognized  in  the  case  of  persons  who  had  mort- 
gaged their  lands,  but  were  still  in  possession  and  in  receipt 
of  the  income  or  profits.7  In  the  case  of  Philipse  vs.  Van 
Home,  the  Assembly  rendered  a  decision  to  the  effect  that 
"a  grantor  of  a  mortgage  in  fee  forfeited,  who  has  been  in 
possession  several  years,  could  not  vote  by  virtue  of  said  mort- 
gage." 8  The  meaning  of  this  decision  is  not  perfectly  clear, 
but  it  appears  to  be  based  on  the  theory  that  the  grantee  of 
a  piece  of  property,  conveyed  upon  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage, 
did  not  hold  the  fee  absolutely  so  long  as  there  existed  an 
equity  of  redemption.  An  English  statute8  held  in  the  anal- 
ogous case  of  the  property  qualification  of  a  member  of  Par- 
liament that  seven  years'  possession  was  necessary  in  order 
to  extinguish  the  equity  of  redemption.  The  rule  in  Rhode 
Island  was  that  no  person  whose  estate  was  under  mortgage 
could  vote  after  the  mortgage  had  expired  and  the  mortgagee 
had  come  into  possession.  The  mortgagee,  if  he  was  in 

1  17  Geo.NII,  chap.  I,  §  iv;  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177.  2  Ibid. 

3  Resolution  of  the  House  of  Burgesses,  36  Car.  II,  3  Hening,  26. 

4  Also  4  Anne,  chap,  ii,  §  6,  3  Hening,  236. 

5  20  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  17,  §  12. 

6  ii  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  I,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,,  28. 
7 13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  94,  §  3;  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  40. 

"6  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  56;  I  Journal Ne~M  York  Assembly,  716. 
s  9  Anne,  chap.  5, 4thly. 


82  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

possession,  could  vote.1  In  England,  in  the  case  of  lands 
under  mortgage  or  held  in  trust,  the  mortgagor  or  cestui  que 
trust  could  vote,  unless  the  trustee  or  mortgagee  was  in 
actual  possession  or  in  receipt  of  the  rents  or  profits.2 
With  reference  to  joint  estates,  there  was  a  peculiar  pro- 
vision in  Virginia.  Joint  tenants  or  tenants  in  common  had 
but  one  vote  between  them,  unless  the  quantity  of  land  was 
sufficient  to  give  each  of  them  the  number  of  acres  required 
to  qualify  a  single  voter.3  A  subsequent  enactment  provided 
that  if  there  was  only  property  enough  to  qualify  for  a  single 
vote,  that  was  not  to  be  given  unless  the  owners  were  agreed/ 
In  all  matters  of  property,  the  common  law  favored  posses- 
sion rather  than  ownership.  Therefore,  as  will  be  seen  when 
we  come  to  treat  of  the  town  franchise  in  North  Carolina,  the 
tenant  rather  than  the  owner  was  permitted  to  vote.6 
Georgia  gave  a  vote  to  a  person  "legally  possessed  in  his 
own  right  of  fifty  acres  of  land,"6  and  Connecticut  required 
no  more  than  possession.7  Virginia  on  the  contrary  recog- 
nized ownership.  Persons  could  vote  who  had  freeholds  in 
their  own  possession  or  in  the  possession  of  their  tenants  for 
"term  of  years,  at  will  or  suffrance."8  After  1760  copy- 
holders were  disfranchised  in  England,9  but  whether  this 
tenure  would  qualify  a  voter  in  America  does^  not  appear  to 
have  been  decided. 

2)  Length  of  Possession  Reqtnred.  In  order  to  put  a  stop 
to  conveyances  made  on  purpose  to  qualify  an  elector, 
several  of  the  colonies  required  freeholders  to  have  been  in 

1  Southwick  ed.,  1772,  29.  2  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  §  7. 

3 10  Geo.  II,  chap,  vi,  §654  Hening,  475. 

4  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15,  7  Hening,  519.         5  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  99, 1 14. 
6  Act  June  9th,  1761.  7  Session  Laws,  40. 

8  10  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  §  n,  4  Hening,  475;   3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §4,  7  Hening, 
519. 

9  Statute  31  Geo.  II,  chap.  14. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  8  3 

vJ 

possession  of  their  estates  a  certain  length  of  time  before 
an  election.  In  New  York  this  period  was  put  at  three 
months  before  the  test  of  the  writs,1  while  in  North  Carolina 
it  was  three  months  before  the  elector  offered  to  vote.2  A 
freemen  voting  as  a  freeholder  in  New  Jersey  must  have 
been  such  for  one  year.*  In  Virginia  no  person  could  vote 
"  in  respect  or  in  right  of  any  lands,  or  tenements,  whereof 
he  has  not  been  in  possession  for  one  whole  year,  next  before 
the  test  of  the  writ  for  such  election :  unless  such  lands  or 
tenements  came  to  such  person  within  that  time,  by  descent, 
marriage,  marriage  settlement  or  devise."4  Just  before  the 
revolution  the  length  of  possession  was  reduced  to  six  calendar 
months.5  The  law  on  this  point  in  "Virginia  appears  to  have 
been  taken  from  two  English  statutes,6  which  required  holders 
of  the  county  franchise  to  have  paid  charges  and  received 
rents  during  the*  year  preceding  an  election,  with  the  ex- 
ceptions allowed  in  Virginia  and  also  for  lands  acquired 
by  presentation  to  some  benefice  in  the  church  or  by  promo- 
tion to  some  office,  to  which  such  freehold  was  affixed. 

3)  Proof  of  Property  Qualification.  The  general  rule  was 
that  a  voter  must  declare  his  qualifications  upon  oath  if  he  was 
required  to  do  so.7  This  power  to  examine  voters  as  to  their 

'  1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap,  74,  §  i,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 

2  8  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  v;  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 
8  13  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  §  i;   Nevill's  Laws,  142,  Allinson's  Laws,  6g. 
*  10  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  §  4,  4  Hening,  475.     3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,   i,  §  6,  re- 
quired either  possession  or  a  legal  title  for  a  year,  7  Hening,  519. 

5  10  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  4,  8  Hening,  305. 

6  10  Anne,  chap.  23,  §  2,  and  1 8  Geo.  II,  chap.  18. 

7 See  Massachusetts,  Laws  1693-4,  chap.  14,  §8,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  148; 
Rhode  Island,  16  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1730,  252;  New  York,  II  Will.  Ill, 
chap.  74,  §  5,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;  New  Jersey,  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's 
Laws,  142;  Virginia,  10  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  4  Hening,  475;  North  Carolina,  17 
Geo.  II.  chap.  I,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177;  33  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  ed.  1772, 
247;  Georgia,  Act  June  gth,  1761.  See  appendix  A,  post. 


84  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

qualifications  under  oath  was  established  in  England  by  the 
statute  of  8  Henry  VI,  chap.  7.  Perjury  and  subornation 
were  punished  there,'  as  well  as  in  New  York 2  and  Vir- 
ginia,3 under  the  Statute  of  Perjuries  of  5  Elizabeth. 
The  laws  of  Rhode  Island  were  especially  explicit  on  this 
subject.  Deeds  must  be  recorded  and  produced  in  open 
town  meeting  at  the  time  of  voting.  In  case  of  dispute  as 
to  the  value  of  a  freehold,  three  persons  chosen  by  the  town 
meeting  were  to  appraise  the  property  in  question.  Town 
clerks  were  permitted  to  search  the  records  and  certify  as  to 
a  freeholder's  qualifications.  Persons  were  required  to  vote 
in  the  town  where  they  lived,  but  in  case  the  estate  for 
which  they  voted  was  not  at  their  place  of  residence,  they 
were  required  to  produce  a  certificate,  dated  within  ten 
days,  from  the  clerk  of  the  town  in  which  the  estate  was 
situated.  If  a  person  was  challenged  as  to«his  qualification, 
he  could  take  the  oath  and  vote  on  that  occasion  only.  In 
future,  he  must  have  a  certificate  of  the  value  of  his  freehold 
from  the  appraisers.4  In  New  Hampshire,  qualifications 
were  proved  by  the  last  lists  of  rates  and  assessments  which 
the  selectmen  were  required  to  bring  to  the  place  of  election-,5 
although  later  the  moderator  seems  to  have  decided  the  mat- 
ter.6 Massachusetts  required  that  the  property  qualification  of 
those  who  were  not  church  members  should  be  certified  by 
the  majority  of  the  selectmen  of  the  town  where  they  resided.7 
This  was  at  one  time  the  law  in  Connecticut,  but  ultimately,8 

1  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25. 

2  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  9,  Van  Schaacks  Laws,  28. 
3 10  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  ii,  §  7,  4  Hening,  475. 

4  20  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  13,  24;  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

5  1 1  Will.  Ill,  3  Provincial  Papers,  216. 

6  I  Geo.  II,  chap.  107,  Fowle  ed.,  1761,  142;  ed.  1771,  166. 
T  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  117,  167. 

8  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  ii;  Session  Laws,  40. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  85 

the  value  of  a  person's  estate  was  computed  by  the  tax-list 
of  the  year  in  which  he  desired  to  be  admitted  as  a  freeman.1 

In  Pennsylvania  the  Quakers  preserved  their  conscientious 
scruples  by  leaving  the  matter  of  estimating  the  value  of  free- 
holds to  election  officers  chosen  for  that  purpose,  and  aided 
by  tax  lists,  as  well  as  by  the  oaths  and  affirmations  of  the 
voters.2  There  seems  to  have  been  a  similar  reluctance  to 
commit  perjury  in  Virginia.  Accordingly  we  find  that  the 
sheriffs  were  required  to  put  in  a  separate  poll  list,  the  votes 
of  such  electors  as  had  any  scruple  about  taking  the  oath, 
because  they  did  not  feel  qualified  to  judge  of  the  value  of 
their  freeholds.  If  the  House  of  Burgesses  made  a  scrutiny 
of  the  poll  such  votes  were  to  be  counted  as  good.3  At 
one  time  in  South  Carolina  a  number  of  parishes  had  been 
occupied  by  the  Indians,  and  it  was  provided  that  the  inhabi- 
tants who  still  held  lands  could  vote  in  whatever  parish  they 
pleased.  In  such  cases,  however,  they  were  required  to 
prove  to  the  electors  of  parishes  that  they  had  not  parted 
with  their  property.4  How  such  proof  was  to  be  adduced  is 
not  clear. 

A  great  deal  of  fraud  was  perpetrated  by  means  of  con- 
veyances made  in  order  to  qualify  electors,  in  order  that 
they  might  vote  for  some  particular  person.  To  prevent 
this,  the  oaths  taken  by  electors  frequently  contained  a  clause 
declaring  that  the  estate  by  which  the  voter  was  qualfied  had 
not  been  conveyed  for  this  purpose.5  In  Rhode  Island  the 

*5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  129;   Session  Laws,  149. 
13  Geo.  I,  chap.  284,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  346. 

3  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  14,  7  Hening,  519. 

4  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §§  xi,  xii,  2  Cooper,  683. 

5  New  York  (n  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §4,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28);  New  Jer- 
sey (12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laws,  142);  Virginia  (10  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  4 
Hening,  475);   North  Carolina  (33  Geo.  II,  chap,   i,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247); 
Georgia  (Act  June  9th,  1761).   See  appendix  A  of  this  work.     Similar  oaths  were 
required  in  England.     Statutes,  10  Anne,  chap.  23;   18  Geo.  II,  chap.  18. 


86  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

grantee  of  an  estate  had  to  take  a  similar  oath,  and  persons 
convicted  of  giving  or  receiving  fraudulent  conveyances  were 
forever  disfranchised.1  In  New  Jersey  fraudulent  conveyances 
to  multiply  votes  or  to  qualify  voters  were  taken  as  free  and 
absolute  against  the  grantors  if  there  was  an  agreement  to 
reconvey,  while  collateral  securities  for  defeating  the  estate 
were  declared  void.  Persons  making  such  conveyances,  or 
voting  by  color  of  them,  were  liable  to  a  fine  of  ten  pounds.2  In 
Virginia  estates  created  or  conveyances  made  to  qualify  voters 
were  null  and  void  ;  persons  voting  by  color  of  such  convey- 
ances,or  who  being  privy  to  the  purpose  of  their  creation  should 
aid  in  drawing  them  up,  were  liable  to  a  fine  of  forty  pounds.3 

B.    THE   TOWN   AND   BOROUGH   FRANCHISE.       As    towns    began    to 

spring  up,  it  became  necessary,  in  those  colonies  where  the 
qualifications  of  electors  were  determined  not  so  much  by 
the  value  of  the  real  property  they  held,  as  by  its  area,  to 
provide  some  special  test  for  those  voters  who  resided  in 
towns  and  hence  did  not  own  fifty  or  a  hundred  acres,  as 
was  required  in  the  counties  at  large.  This  franchise  must 
be  distinguished  also  on  the  one  hand  from  that  possessed 
by  persons  voting  for  assemblymen  in  right  of  their  free- 
dom in  a  municipal  corporation,  as',  for  instance,  New  York 
and  Albany/  and  on  the  other  hand  from  the  right  to  vote 
for  local  officers  in  a  New  England  town  meeting  or  for 
municipal  officers,  by  virtue  of  the  ownership  of  a  freehold 
within  the  city  limits.5  We  shall  see  that  this  franchise  was 
generally  conferred  by  the  act  incorporating  a  particular 
town,  while  the  want  of  it  in  Georgia,  where  the  possession 

1  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

2  12-Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  §  I,  Nevill's  Laws,  142.      This  was  the  law  in  England, 
as  laid  down  by  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  and  10  Anne,  chap.  23. 

1  IO  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  Hi,  4  Hening,  475. 

*  1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  10,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 

5  New  York,  II  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1490,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  87 

of  fifty  acres  of  land  was  required  of  electors,  is  said  to  have 
disfranchised  many  freeholders  in  towns  whose  estates  might 
be  greater  in  value  and  liable  for  heavier  taxes  than  several 
hundred  acres  in  the  country.1  It  may  be  supposed  that  in 
Virginia  this  franchise  was  indicated  by  the  shortlived  law 
of  1655,  which  limited  the  suffrage  to  "all  housekeepers, 
whether  freeholders,  leaseholders  or  otherwise  tenants,2  and 
also  by  the  statute  of  22  Charles  II,  which  finally  gave  the 
elective  franchise  to  freeholders  and  housekeepers.3  The 
former  act  allowed  but  one  person  in  a  family  to  avail  him- 
self of  this  privilege.  This  is  in  line  with  the  ancient  English 
custom  which  regarded  the  burgess-ship  as  the  absolute  right 
of  all  free  inhabitant-housekeepers,4  and  admitted  but  one 
voice  to  a  house.5  The  act  of  1736  which  defined  the  number 
of  acres  to  be  possessed  by  freeholders  in  the  counties 
expressly  exempted  from  its  operation  all  freeholders  resi- 
dent in  cities  or  towns  incorporated  by  act  of  assembly, 
and  confirmed  them  in  their  privilege  of  voting  in  right  of  a 
house  and  lot,  or  of  a  house  and  part  of  a  lot.  In  case  the 
interest  in  such  house  and  lot  was  divided,  but  one  voice 
could  be  admitted  for  the  same  house  and  lot.0  A  later  statute 
required  such  town  houses  to  be  at  least  twelve  feet  square.7 
The  burgess  from  the  college  of  William  and  Mary  was  re- 
turned by  the  president  and  the  masters  or  professors.8 
The  charter  of  Williamsburg  gave  the  right  to  return  one 
burgess,  first  to  all  the  freeholders  of  the  city  who  owned  a 
lot  of  land  in  the  city  with  a  house  built  thereon  accord- 
ing to  law ;  in  the  second  place,  to  all  actual  residents  who 

1  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  4.12. 

2  5-6  Commonwealth,  Act  vii,  I  Hening,  411. 

s  2  Hening,  280.  *  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  177, 189. 

5  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25.     6  10  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  4  Hening,  475. 

7  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  4,  7  Hening,  519. 

84  Anne,  chap,  ii,  §  vii,  3  Hening,  241.      See  Appendix  A,/of/. 


8  8  MS  TOR  Y  Of  RLE  C  TIONS 

had  a  visible  estate  of  fifty  pounds  current  money,  and,  lastly, 
to  all  persons  who  had  served  five  years  at  any  trade  within 
the  city,  and  should  at  the  end  of  that  time  be  actually  house- 
keepers and  residents.  A  certificate  in  regard  to  the  appren- 
ticeship must  be  obtained  from  the  court  of  Hustings.  On 
the  lot  owned  by  a  freeholder  there  must  be  a  house  of  certain 
dimensions  required  by  law  for"  saving"  such  lot  in  tenantable 
repair  at  the  time  of  voting.  Servants,  whether  they  were 
bound  by  indenture,  covenant  or  other  form  of  obligation, 
could  not  vote.  Twelve  months  residence  was  required  of 
all  electors.  Joint  tenants  and  tenants  in  common  had  only 
one  vote  between  them,  and  that  was  to  be  given  only  in  case 
the  parties  could  agree.1 

By  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  East  Jersey  the  pos- 
sessor of  a  house  and  three  acres  in  a  borough  was  enfran- 
chised ;  also  the  tenant  of  a  hired  house  and  land,  provided 
he  could  prove  that  he  had  fifty  pounds  in  stock  of  his  own.'2 
Under  the  royal  government  two  representatives  were  re- 
turned by  the  inhabitants-householders  of  Burlington  in  West 
Jersey  and  two  by  the  inhabitants-householders  of  Perth  Am- 
boy  in  East  Jersey.8  In  Philadelphia  two  representatives 
were  returned  by  those  of  the  inhabitants  who  had  a  freehold 
estate  or  were  worth  fifty  pounds  clear,  personal  estate, 
within  the  city.4  In  South  Carolina  a  freeholder  of  "  houses, 
lands  or  town  lots  or  parts  thereof  to  the  value  of  £60  pro- 
clamation money  in  Charlestown  or  any  other  town  for  which 
he  paid  tax  the  precedent  year"  was  permitted  to  vote  for 
assemblymen.5  As  soon  as  a  town  in  North  Carolina  had 
sixty  families  it  returned  a  member  to  the  assembly.6  As 

1 15  Geo.  II,  chap.  26;    5  Hening,  204. 

*  Concessions  1683,  §  iii,  Learning  and  Spicer,  153.  s  Ibid.,  623. 

4  4  Anne,  chap.  1 29,  Franklin  ed.,  1 742,  67.       5  Act  1 745,  no.  730, 3  Cooper,  65  7. 

6  2  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  1 76. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


89 


the  early  laws  required  only  the  payment  of  one  year's  levy 
and  residence  in  the  province  a -full  year  preceding  an  elec- 
tion, there  was  no  need  of  a  separate  qualification  for  resi- 
dents of  towns.1  In  1723  the  law  of  1715  was  supplemented 
by  an  act  defining  the  qualifications  of  holders  of  the  town 
franchise.  Every  elector  must  own  a  "saved  lot"  in  the 
town  and  constantly  keep  a  house  thereon  in  repair.  The 
house  and  lot  could  not  be  let  to  or  tenanted  by  a  "  person 
capable  of  voting  in  the  town,  though  not  residing  therein." 
If,  however,  a  person  who  had  paid  the  preceding  year's 
"  levy  or  pole  tax,"  rented  and  lived  "  in  and  on  such  house 
and  lot,  in  the  said  town  not  tenanted,"  he  could  vote. 
"  But  if  the  tenant  by  law  have  not  a  right  to  vote,  then  the 
owner  thereof,  and  not  the  tenant,  shall  have  the  vote."1 
The  act  incorporating  the  town  of  Edenton3  gave  a  vote 
to  the  owner  of  a  "  saved  "  lot  who  had  held  it  for  six  months 
before  the  election.  In  Wilmington  the  borough  franchise 
was  given  to  the  tenant  of  a  brick,  stone  or  frame  house 
twenty  feet  long  by  sixteen  wide,  who  inhabited  said  house 
on  the  day  of  election  and  had  done  so  for  three  months 
previously.  If  there  was  no  tenant  qualified  to  vote,  then 

1  Laws  1715,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

2  These  vaguely  worded  provisions  are  taken  from  the  original  copy,  now  pre- 
served in  the  North  Carolina  State  Library,  of  chap,  ii,  Laws  of   1 723,  "  An  act 
intituled  an  additional  Act  relating  to  biennial  and  other  assemblies  and  regulating 
Elections  and  divers  other  things  relating  to  Towns."     See  Appendix  B,  post.     It 
is  quoted  as  obsolete  in  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  53,  and  ed.  1773,  30.     There 
is  also  another  act,  chap,  ii,  Laws  1727,  "an  Act  regulating  towns  and  election 
of  Burgesses,"  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  67;   ed.  1773,  37.     This  is  given  only 
by  title  in   the  statute  books,  and  the  writer  is  informed  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Birdsong, 
the  State  Librarian,  that  the  original  manuscript  laws  of  the  State  from  1723  to 
1743  are  supposed  to  have  been  destroyed  by  fire  about  1830.     It  has  conse- 
quently, been  impossible  to  secure  a  copy,  although  Dr.  Hawks  {History  of  North 
Carolina,  177)  apparently  refers  to  it. 

s  14  Geo.  II,  chap,  xii,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  107. 


9Q  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

the  person  seized  in  his  own  right  in  fee  simple,  fee  tail  or  for 
life  had  the  franchise.  A  vote  in  the  choice  of  the  represent- 
ative from  Wilmington  was  also  given  to  every  "man"  who 
inhabited  a  brick  house,  thirty  feet  by  sixteen,  "  between  the 
bounds  of  that  town  upwards  and  South  Creek,  and  within 
1 20  Poles  of  Cape  Feare  River,"  unless  such  person  was  a 
servant.1  In  Brunswick  the  voter  must  be  the  tenant,  or  if 
there  was  none,  the  owner  of  a  stone  or  habitable  house 
within  the  town  of  the  "  Dimensions  of  Twenty  feet  by  Six- 
teen with  one  or  more  Brick  or  Stone  Chimney  or  Chimnies.''2 
In  other  respects  the  qualifications  were  the  same  as  in  Wil- 
mington. The  preference  given  the  tenant  as  against  the 
owner  in  North  Carolina  is  worthy  of  note.  This  doubtless 
was  due  to  the  common  law  presumption  in  favor  of  pos- 
session. 

§  9.  Miscellaneous.  There  were  a  few  minor  qualifications 
required  at  various  times,  which  do  not  fall  conveniently 
under  any  of  the  preceding  heads.  Thus,  New  Jersey's  first 
concession  and  agreement,  as  well  as  that  of  Carolina,  de- 
clared that  all  persons  who  were  "  subjects  to  the  King  of 
England  and  swear  or  subscribe  allegiance  to  the  King  and 
faithfulness  to  the  Lords,"  should  be  freemen.  The  inhabi- 
tants who  were  freemen  or  chief  agents  to  others  should 
elect  the  representatives.3  In  West  Jersey  proprietors  were 
allowed  to  vote,4  though  in  South  Carolina  both  they  and 
their  deputies  were  debarred.5  The  latter  provision  was 
doubtless  derived  by  analogy  from  England,  where  a  peer 
of  the  realm  had  no  voice  in  the  choice  of  a  member  of 

'Acts  1739, 1740,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  99,  114. 
*33  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  xiii,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247. 

8  New  Jersey,  1664,  i  New  Jersey  Archives,  30,  Learning  and  Spicer,  12  et  seq.; 
Carolina,  1665,  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  80,  166. 

4  Learning  and  Spicer,  385.  5  Act  1704,  no.  227,  §  xi,  2  Cooper,  249. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  91 

parliament.1  Persons  under  guardianship  could  not  vote  in 
Rhode  Island.2  A  statute  enacted  in  1717  declared  that 
"  no  apprentice  or  other  covenanted  servant  for  term  of 
years,  whether  by  indenture  or  custom  of  the  county, 
could  be  an  elector"  in  South  Carolina.3  The  petition, 
already  quoted,  to  the  lords  proprietors,  of  Carolina,  com- 
plained, that,  at  the  Berkeley  county  election  in  1701,  a 
great  number  of  servants,  and  also  poor  and  indigent  persons 
voted  promiscuously  with  their  masters  and  creditors.4 
This  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  neither  debtors  nor 
servants  could  legally  be  electors  in  South  Carolina.5  Dur- 
ing the  interval  between  the  efforts  to  introduce  the  consti- 
tution of  Locke  and  the  final  adoption  of  a  property 
qualification,6  North  Carolina  required  of  voters  the  pay- 
ment of  the  levy  for  the  year  preceding  the  election.7  The 
laws  drawn  up  by  Penn  in  1682,  declared  that  every  inhabi- 
tant, artificer  or  other  resident  who  paid  scot  and  lot  to  the 
government  could  vote.8 

In  New  York  persons  refusing  to  take  upon  tender  of  the 
sheriff  the  oaths  appointed  by  law  to  be  taken  instead  of  the 
oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy,  and  to  sign  the  test  and 
association  could  not  vote.9  New  Hampshire  in  the  earlier 
part  of  her  history  as  a  separate  province,  seems  to  have 
required  the  oath  of  allegiance  from  all  electors.10  By  the 
Hartford  Constitution  of  1638  all  those  who  had  taken 

'Troward,  Elections,  21.  2  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

J  Act  1717,  no.  373,  §  xi,  3  Cooper,  2. 

4  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  453,  et  seq. 

5  Probably  this  was  also  true  in  Virginia.    21  Car.  I,  Act  xx,  i  Hening,  333. 

6  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.  1752, 177. 

1  Laws,  1715,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

8  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37. 

9  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  94,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  40. 

10Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  177;  I  Provincial  Papers,  396. 


92  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

the  "  oath  of  Fidellity  and  doe  cohabitte  within  the  juris- 
diction (haueing  been  admitted  inhabitants  by  the  major 
part  of  the  town  where  they  live)"  were  allowed  to  vote  for  the 
magistrates  of  the  colony.1  In  general  it  may  be  stated  that 
whenever  the  suffrage  was  exercised  only  by  persons  duly 
admitted  as  freemen,  the  taking  of  the  prescribed  oath  be- 
came a  condition  precedent  to  the  right  of  voting. 

§  10.  Admission  of  Freemen.  It  has  already  been  men- 
tioned that  in  New  England  the  right  of  voting  was  inherent 
in  persons  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  a  colony.  To  obtain 
this  freedom,  and  thus  become  a  freeman  and  incidentally  an 
elector,  certain  prescribed  steps  had  to  be  taken.  Before 
going  into  a  detailed  account  of  the  methods  that  were 
followed  in  admitting  the  freemen  of  the  different  col- 
onies, it  will  perhaps  be  well  to  state  the  general  rules  on  the 
subject.  Freemen  could  originally  be  admitted  only  at  one 
of  the  general  courts.  The  court  could  probably  exercise 
a  certain  amount  of  discretion  as  to  who  should  be  ad- 
mitted, and  it  usually  insisted  that  the  names  of  candidates 
should  be  proposed  a  certain  length  of  time  before  enrol- 
ment. Freemen  became  such  upon  taking  the  oath  and  hav- 
ing their  names  enrolled.  Ultimately  freemen  were  allowed 
to  be  admitted  in  their  own  towns,  and  in  such  cases  the 
town  clerk  was  required  to  send  their  names  to  the  secretary 
of  the  colony  for  enrollment.  The  writer,  for  reasons  else- 
where explained,  believes  that  the  principle  of  allowing  the 
freedom  of  a  colony  to  stand  as  the  sole  qualification  of  a 
voter  did  not  exist  outside  of  the  five  Puritan  colonies.3 

Beginning  with  the  Plymouth  colony,  we  find  that  in  1658 
a  law  was  passed  requiring  those  who  desired  to  be  admitted 
as  freemen  to  have  their  names  "  propounded"  at  the  June 
court,  and  in  that  case  they  could  be  admitted  at  the  corres- 

1 1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  "  See  p.  49,  ante. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


93 


ponding  court. twelve  months  later,  "if  the  court  shall  not 
see  cause  to  the  contrary."1  We  may  imagine  that  this  dis- 
cretion given  to  the  court  was  the  earliest  form  of  an  electoral 
qualification.  In  1674,  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
proposal  in  the  general  court,  candidates  had  to  be  approved 
by  the  majority  of  the  freemen  of  their  town,  and  that  ap- 
proval communicated  to  the  general  court  through  the  depu- 
ties under  the  town  clerk's  hand.  The  names  of  the  freemen 
in  each  town  were  required  to  be  kept  on  the  town  record.2 
Later  when  qualifications  were  required,  persons  could  only 
be  admitted  at  the  court  of  election  in  open  court,  and 
then  not  until  after  they  had  been  proposed  for  a  year. 
Persons  "  generally  known  and  approved,  or  of  whom  the 
court  may  make  present  improvement,"  were  not  required 
to  serve  a  term  of  probation.3  In  Massachusetts,  as  in 
Plymouth,  the  power  to  admit  freemen  rested  with  the  general 
court.  But  in  1664,  in  order  to  save  newly-admitted  freemen 
the  trouble  of  coming  to  Boston  in  order  to  take  the  oath,  it 
was  provided  that  they  could  be  sworn  by  a  county  court. 
For  this  purpose  the  Secretary  of  the  colony  was  authorized 
to  make  out  from  the  records  of  the  general  court  a  list  of 
those  who  had  been  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  colony, 
and  give  it,  with  a  copy  of  the  freeman's  oath,  to  an  agent  of 
the  persons  admitted,  who  should  deliver  it  to  the  clerk 
or  recorder  of  the  county  court  where  they  were  to  be 
sworn.4  The  names  of  those  desiring  to  receive  the 
freedom  of  the  colony  were  propounded  and  put  to  vote  in 
the  general  court  for  acceptance  "by  the  suffrage  of  the 
major  part."5  From  1673  to  1683  candidates  who  were  not 
church  members  were  required  to  have  their  names  entered 

1  Laws,  1658,  Brigham  108.  2  Laws,  1674,  Brigham,  170. 

*  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  Brigham  258. 

4  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  134,  299.  5  Ibid.,  117,  167. 


94 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


"  from  tyme  to  tyme  with  the  Secretary  at  the  court  of  elec- 
tion, and  read  over  before  the  court  sometime  that  session, 
and  not  put  to  vote  "  till  the  court  of  election  next  following.1 
For  a  short  time  there  existed  a  law  forbidding  the  admis- 
sion of  freemen  on  the  day  of  the  court  of  election.2  Under 
the  royal  government  after  1691  the  freedom  of  the  colony 
did  not  exist. 

Rhode  Island  seems  to  have  recognized  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  freedom  of  the  colony  and  the  freedom  of  a  town. 
This  was  most  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  Rhode  Island 
was  a  confederacy  of  several  towns  of  equal  size,  rather  than 
a  colony  whose  towns  were  created  under  acts  of  a  general 
court,  as  was  the  case  in  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts.3 
Before  the  first  charter  Portsmouth  decided  that  none 
could  be  admitted  as  inhabitants  or  as  freemen  without  the 
consent  of  the  body/  At  first  the  freedom  of  the  colony  in 
Rhode  Island  as  well  as  elsewhere  was  conferred  only  by 
the  general  court.5  About  1665  we  find  it  stated  that  per- 
sons with  "  sufficient  testimony  of  their  fitness  and  qualifica- 
tions, as  shall  be  deemed  satisfactory  by  the  assembly,  or  by 
the  chief  officer  of  the  town  where  they  lived,"  should  be 
proposed  and  admitted  "  upon  their  express  desire  declared 
to  the  assembly  either  by  themselves  or  the  chief  officer  of 
their  town."  They  could  not  vote  until  they  had  been  ad- 
mitted by  the  assembly  and  sworn,  and  their  names  entered 
on  the  general  records  of  the  colony."  The  towns  were 
given  power  to  admit  freemen  soon  afterward,  and  the 

1  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  385. 

2  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii(  86;   repealed,  ibid.  134. 

3  i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  236,  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  338. 
The  latter  reference  is  the  repeal  of  a  law  which  was  in  force  for  a  short  time,  and 
which  restricted  the  choice  of  deputies  to  freemen  of  the  colony. 

4  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  53,  85.  5  Ibid.,  104,  108,  263,  etc. 
6  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  113,  516. 


AV  THE  AMERICAN  COLOXIES. 


95 


clerk  was  required  to  send  a  list  of  those  admitted  to  the 
general  assembly  in  May  of  each  year.1  The  assembly  did 
not  lose  its  power  to  admit  freemen.2  The  names  of  candi- 
dates for  admission  were  proposed  for  three  months  in 
town  meeting,3  an  exception,  however,  being  made  in  the 
case  of  those  entitled  to  be  freemen  by  virtue  of  their  birth. 
Freemen  removing  from  one  town  to  another  were  admitted 
in  their  new  place  of  residence  upon  presentation  of  a  certifi- 
cate, without  being  propounded.*  No  one  could  be  made 
free  on  election  day.5 

In  the  New  Haven  colony  freemen  were  admitted  at  a 
meeting  of  the  general  court,"  and  this  was  also  true  in  Hart- 
ford,7 though  at  first  freemen  had  to  take  the  oath  of  fidelity 
and  be  admitted  inhabitants  by  the  majority  of  the  resi- 
dents of  the  town  where  they  lived.8  They  were  pre- 
sented at  the  October  general  court  in  "  an  orderly 
way,  to  prevent  tumult  and  trouble,"  and  admitted  at 
the  May  court."  After  1689  freemen  were  admitted  and 
sworn  by  any  assistant  or  commissioner,  who  was  required 
before  the  next  general  sessions  to  send  the  names  of  those 
he  had  admitted  to  the  secretary  of  the  colony  for  enrollment.1" 
Finally  freemen  were  admitted  in  town  meetings,  as  was  ul- 
timately the  case  in  Rhode  Island.  The  town  clerk  admin- 
istered the  oath  and  enrolled  the  names  in  a  book  provided 

1 18  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed,  1744,  9;  6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  323. 

2  6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  256.     3  20  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  13. 

*  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78.     5  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  190. 

6  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  35,  40,  etc. 

1  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  417.  8  Ibid.,  21. 

Ubid.,  331,389- 

10  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  17,  Session  Laws,  40;  4  Connecticut  Colonial 
Records,  483,  provided  that  an  assistant  or  a  justice  of  the  peace  could  administer 
the  oath. 


96  .  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

for  the  purpose.1     The  penalty  of  disfranchisement  was  in- 
flicted by  the  superior  court. 

In  addition  to  the  freedom  of  the  Puritan  colonies  it  is 
necessary  to  consider  the  rules  governing  the  admission  of 
freemen  of  the  cities  in  the  province  of  New  York,  inasmuch 
as  such  persons  could  vote  for  assemblymen.  Thus,  the 
Dongan  charter  gave  to  the  Mayor,  Recorder  and  Alder- 
men of  New  York  the  privilege  of  making  free  citizens 
under  their  common  seal.  As  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
freedom  of  the  city,  persons  must  be  natural  born  subjects 
of  the  king  or  else  have  been  naturalized  by  act  of  assem- 
bly, or  by  letters  of  denization  from  the  lieutenant  governor. 
The  use  of  any  "Art  trade  Mystery  or  Manual  Occupation" 
within  the  limits  of  the  city,  was  restricted  to  freemen  of  the 
corporation  and  as  we  have  already  seen,3  they  possessed  the 
privilege  of  voting  at  the  elections  of  members  of  the  assembly. 
The  Montgomery  charter  contained  similar  provisions.  The 
common  council  fixed  the  fee  for  freedoms  at  five  pounds.4 
The  provisions  in  regard  to  freemen  under  the  Dongan 
charter  of  Albany  are  similar  to  those  with  respect  to  New 
York.5  In  Philadelphia  the  freedom  of  the  corporation 
could  be  bestowed  on  free  denizens  of  the  province  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  who  were  inhabitants  of  the  city  with  an 
estate  of  inheritance  or  of  freehold,  or  who  were  worth 
fifty  pounds  in  money  or  other  stock,  and  who  had  been 
residents  within  the  city  for  the  space  of  two  years,  or 
who  should  purchase  their  freedom  from  the  Mayor  and 
commonalty.  This  does  not,  however,  specially  concern 

1  3  Geo.  II,  chap.  47,  Session  Laws,  370;  7  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  260. 
*  Session  Laws,  1750,  81.  3  See  p.  47,  ante. 

4  See    New   York  Historical   Society  Collections,   1885,  48,  481.     The    com- 
plete rolls  of  the  freemen  of  the   city,  as  well  as  of  the  holders  of  the  Burgher 
rights  in  Dutch  times  are  published  in  this  volume. 

5  1686;   Weise,  History  of  Albany,  200. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  97 

us,  for  the  freedom  of  Philadelphia  did  not  in  itself  en- 
title a  person  to  vote  for  assemblymen.  Besides  this,  the 
qualifications  required  of  freemen  were  practically  the  same 
as  those  required  of  electors  in  general.1 

In  England,  toward  the  close  of  the  colonial  era,  two  stat- 
utes were  enacted  with  a  view  to  putting  a  stop  to  the  nu- 
merous abuses  which  appear  to  have  developed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  freedoms.  On  being  refused  admission,  a  person 
could  compel  the  officers  to  grant  him  a  certificate,  by  means 
of  a  writ  of  mandamus  from  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  and 
he  could  recover  his  costs  from  the  delinquent  corporation. 
Freemen  must  have  held  their  freedom  for  twelve  months 
before  they  could  vote  for  members  of  Parliament,  and  cor- 
porate officers  were  fined  .£500  for  antedating  the  admission 
of  a  freeman.  During  certain  hours  of  the  day,  and  upon  pay- 
ment of  a  nominal  fee,  books  and  papers  bearing  on  the 
subject  were  open  to  the  inspection  of  candidates  or  of  their 
agents,  or  of  any  two  freemen.2 

1  Miller  ed.,  1762,  10.  *  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15;   12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  21. 


CHAPTER  III.    THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  ELECTIONS. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  manage- 
ment of  elections  we  find  the  colonies  divided  into  three 
great  classes.  The  first  group  comprised  the  four  colonies 
founded  under  Puritan  influence  and  situated  in  the  territory 
which  we  call  New  England.  Just  as  these  developed  the 
principle  of  requiring  voters  to  be  freemen  of  the  colony,  and 
inclined,  so  long  as  they  were  left  to  themselves,  toward  re- 
ligious and  moral  rather  than  property  qualifications  for 
electors,  so  did  they  develop  and  possibly  originate  the  sys- 
tem of  nominating  candidates  for  the  office  of  assistant,  and 
the  proxy  method  of  voting.  These  two  features,  peculiar  to 
New  England  elections,  were  developed  contemporaneously 
in  the  four  Puritan  colonies,  and  reached  in  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut  the  final  stage  which  would  doubtless  have 
been  attained  in  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  had  it  not 
been  for  the  interference  of  the  English  government  which 
resulted  in  the  charter  of  1691. 

The  second  group  of  colonies  includes  those  which  elected 
the  members  of  their  legislatures  in  a  manner  almost  pre- 
cisely similar  to  that  employed  in  choosing  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons  in  England.  In  this  class  we 
would  place  New  York,  Virginia,  Georgia,  Maryland,  and 
New  Jersey  after  1704.  The  system  in  vogue  was  due  to 
the  fact  that  these  colonies  were  most  closely  under  royal 
rule,  and  that  Maryland,  although  she  had  a  proprietary 
government,  avowedly  followed  the  English  practice.1 

1  See  Act  1678;  Maryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  60. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  CQLONIES.  gg 

The  third  group  includes  colonies  proprietary  in  their 
origin,  just  as  those  of  the  first  were  corporate,  and  those  of 
the  second,  royal  provinces.  In  the  present  group  we 
would  place  the  two  Jersey  colonies,  Pennsylvania  and 
Delaware,  and  the  two  Carolinas.  In  all  of  these  the  pro- 
prietors tried  to  introduce  systems  of  government,  original 
in  many  respects,  but  so  visionary  that  they  worked  badly 
in  practice.  For  several  of  these  colonies  some  remarkable 
methods  of  conducting  elections  were  designed,  and  these  in 
time  received  many  modifications,  so  that  they  finally 
occupied  a  position  midway  between  those  of  the  colonies  in 
the  first  two  classes  and  embracing  many  of  the  salient 
characteristics  of  each. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  first  and  the  third  class  from  the 
beginning  of  their  history  used  the  ballot,  an  institution 
which  was  not  introduced  in  English  parliamentary  elections 
until  1872.  The  fortn  of  the  ballot  differed  considerably,  but 
secrecy  was  the  chief  end  desired  by  the  Puritans,  especially 
in  the  election  of  assistants.  In  the  Carolinas,  however,  the 
secret  ballot  seems  to  have  reached  a  high  state  of  develop- 
ment, although,  as  we  shall  see,  North  Carolina  went  back  to 
the  English  method  in  I76o.1 

§  i.  The  Calling  of  an  Election.  Two  methods  appear  to 
have  been  employed  by  the  colonial  governments  in  calling 
an  election.  The  first  was  by  a  statutory  or  constitutional 
provision  fixing  certain  days  as  those  on  which  elections 
should  take  place.  The  best  example  of  this  method  is 
found  in  the  Puritan  colonies.  In  each  of  these  the  election 


1Mr.  Douglas  Campbell  in  his  recent  work,  The  Puritan  in  England,  Holland 
and  America,  makes  the  statement  (vol.  ii,  440)  that  the  ballot  did  not  appear 
in  the  colonies  south  of  Pennsylvania.  With  all  deference  to  Mr.  Campbell, 
I  believe  this  statement  to  be  erroneous,  because,  as  will  be  shown  in  a  subsequent 
section,  the  ballot  in  the  Carolinas  was  as  fully  developed  in  the  direction  of  secrecy 
as  in  those  colonies  under  the  influence  of  Puritan  ideas. 


IOQ  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

of  the  governor  and  other  general  officers  took  place  at 
specified  sessions  of  the  general  courts  usually  held  in  the 
spring.  When  assembled  for  the  choice  of  magistrates  it 
was  known  as  the  General  Court  of  Election,  and  was  origin- 
ally attended  by  all  the  freemen,  but  afterwards  by  their 
representatives. 

The  second  method  prevailed  in  the  colonies  which  were 
more  directly  controlled  by  the  English  government,  and 
where  the  only  elected  officers  of  a  general  character  were  the 
members  of  the  legislative  assembly.  The  elections  of  these, 
like  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
were  called  by  means  of  writs  prerogative  in  their  character, 
and  therefore  issued  by  or  under  authority  of  the  royal  govern- 
or as  representive  of  the  crown.  The  only  limitation  on  the 
power  to  issue  writs  of  election  was  that  established  by 
statutes  similar  to  those  in  England,1  and  requiring  assemblies 
to  be  elected  at  least  once  in  certain  fixed  periods.  The 
power  to  call  assemblies  was  usually  conferred  by  the  com- 
missions or  instructions  of  the  royal  governors.2  The  maxi- 
mum period  for  which  assemblymen  were  elected  in  New 
Jersey  was  fixed  by  statute  at  seven  years3 ;  in  Maryland 4 
and  Virginia,5  (perhaps  also  in  New  Hampshire6)  at  three 

1  6  Will,  and  Mary,  chap,  i,  "triennial;"  I  Geo.  I,  chap. 38,  "septennial." 

2  For  example,  New  Hampshire,  commission  of  President  Cutts  (Fowle  ed,  1771, 
4);  New  York,  Governor  Dongan,  1682—3  (3  A'ew  York  Colonial  Documents,  317, 
330,  and  624)  ;  New  Jersey,  Lord  Cornbury,  1702  (Learning  and  Spicer,  623,  647). 
Penn  called  his  assemblies  by  virtue  of  his  own  authority  as  Proprietor,  conferred 
by  his  charter  (§4,   I   Pennsylvania    Colonial  Records.   19;   Chalmers,  Political 
Annals,  645;    I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  206;.     So  did  Lord  Baltimore 
through  his  representative  in  Maryland  (Maryland  Archives,  I  Assembly,  i,etc.}. 
So  also  the  Carolinas   (i  North  Carolina   Colonial  Records,  181,  235,  333),  and 
under  royal  rule  by  Governor  Burrington's  commission  (1729—30,  3  Aorth  Caro- 
lina Colonial  Records,  68). 

3  8  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws,  306,  307. 

4  Maryland  Archives,  \  Correspondence  Governor  Sharpe,  68.  See  p.  34  ante. 
6  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  3,  7  Hening,  519.  6  4  Provincial  Papers,  114. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  IOI 

years ;  while  North  Carolina  had  biennial  elections,1  as  had 
South  Carolina  during  a  portion  of  her  history.'2  By  Penn's 
Charter  of  Privileges  it  was  provided  that  assemblies  should 
be  elected  annually.3 

In  addition  to  these  two  systems  we  shall  find  that  one  or 
two  colonies  not  only  fixed  a  certain  date  on  which  elections 
were  to  be  held,  but  also  provided  that  a  writ  should  be 
issued  in  anticipation  of  the  appointed  day.4  We  find  that 
in  Pennsylvania  in  1688-9  tne  question  of  issuing  writs  in 
such  cases  was  decided  in  the  negative.  It  seems  that  the 
governor  asked  his  council  whether  it  were  useful  or  need- 
ful for  him  to  issue  writs  or  warrants  for  summoning  the 
freemen  to  elect  representatives  on  the  appointed  day.  The 
council  in  reply  resolved  that  the  freemen  would  observe 
the  day  "  of  course  "  without  writs  or  warrants.5 

The  New  England  court  of  election  was  held  annually  at 
the  capital  of  each  colony,  the  date  being  fixed  by  law.  In 
the  Plymouth  Colony,  until  1636,  it  was  held  at  Plymouth 
on  January  ist,6  though  in  the  latter  years  of  this  period  the 
persons  elected  did  not  take  office  until  after  March  27th.7 
From  1636  till  1658,  the  first  Tuesday  in  March  was  fixed 
as  the  day  of  election,8  but  in  the  latter  year  the  date  was 
changed  to  the  corresponding  Tuesday  in  June,  "  nothing 
extraordinary  preventing."9  The  last  general  court  of  elec- 

1 1715;   2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

*3  Cooper,  135,  "triennial;"  3  Cooper,  692,  "biennial;"  3  Cooper,  656,  "an- 
nual." See  p.  43,  ante. 

3  l  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444. 

*West  Jersey,  Learning  and  Spicer,  423;  Carolinas,  I  North  Carolina  Colo- 
nial Records,  181,  376,  696,  etc. 

5 1  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  240. 

6  I  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  5.  7  Ibid.,  21. 

8  Laws,  1636;    II  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  7,  10;   Brigham,  37,40. 

9  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  108. 


1 02  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

tion  was  held  June  2nd,  1691. ,'  After  1691,  associates  were 
elected  in  the  county  courts  on  the  last  Wednesday  in  June.2 

The  Massachusetts  election  took  place  at  Boston.  The 
date  prescribed  by  the  charter  of  1628  was  the  last  Wednes- 
day of  Easter  Term.8  In  April  1629,  Governor  Endicott 
was  elected  in  London,  and  another  election  appears  to 
have  been  held  in  October  of  the  same  year.4  In  October, 
1678,  a  special  court  of  election  was  held,5  while  after  1632 
the  regular  election  took  place  on  the  second  Wednesday  in 
May.6  This  continued  to  be  the  practice  until  1686,  when  the 
last  election  before  the  forfeiture  of  the  charter  took  place."7 

Newport,  before  the  charter  of  Providence  Plantations  was 
granted,  held  her  courts  of  election  on  March  I2th  of  each 
year.8  Under  the  charter  the  first  court  of  election  was  held 
at  Portsmouth,  May  I9th,  1647,  and  it  was  resolved  to  hold  it 
thereafter  on  May  I5th  of  each  year  "if  wind  and  weather 
hinder  not."9  Subsequent  elections  appear  to  have  been 
held  in  rotation  at  each  of  the  four  towns.10  The  charter  of 
1 5  Charles  II,  provided  that  the  court  of  election  should  be 
held  every  year  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  May,  at  Newport 
or  elsewhere  "  if  urgent."11 

In  New  Haven  until  about  1647  the  court  of  election  was 
held  during  the  last  week  of  October.12  Then  the  date  was 

I  6  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  264.  *  Brigham,  237. 
3 1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  12,  277.              *  Ibid.,  59. 

6  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  195. 

6  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  95. 

7  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  513. 

8  1640,  1641;    I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  98,  100,  112,  123. 

9  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  147,  149. 

10 Ibid.,  149,  216,  220,  235,  241.  Two  rival  elections  each  purporting  to  be  for 
the  colony,  Ibid.,  244,  262,  264,  278,  303,  336,  363,  386,  407. 

II  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  1 1. 

12  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  20,  114. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 


103 


changed  to  the  last  Wednesday  in  May.1  The  Hartford  con- 
stitution of  1638  fixed  the  date  for  the  election  of  Governor 
as  the  second  Thursday  in  April,2  but  in  1646  this  was 
changed  to  the  third  Thursday  in  May.3  As  provided  by 
the  charter  of  14  Charles  II,  the  date  of  the  election  of  Gov- 
ernor and  other  general  officers  for  the  colony  of  Connecti- 
cut was  the  second  Thursday  in  May.4  Plymouth  passed  a 
law  ordering  that  the  court  of  election  should  be  held  in  his 
"  Majesties  name  of  England,"  and  that  the  Governor  through 
the  constables  should  warn  the  freemen  to  attend.5  The 
other  colonies  do  not  seem  to  have  provided  for  any  further 
notice  of  the  court  of  election  beyond  that  implied  by  the 
statute  fixing  the  day  on  which  it  should  be  held.6 

In  the  Puritan  colonies,  as  has  been  mentioned,  deputies 
were  chosen  by  each  town  to  represent  the  freemen  at  the 
general  election.7  When  the  proxy  system  was  intro- 
duced, those  freemen  who  did  not  attend  the  general 
court  of  election  handed  in  their  proxies  at  the  town 
elections  when  the  deputies  were  chosen.8  It  came  to  be  a 
matter  of  importance  to  fix  properly  the  dates  of  those  town 
meetings,  for  ultimately,  both  in  Rhode  Island  and  Con- 
necticut, all  the  votes  had  to  be  cast  in  the  towns,  freemen 
being  prohibited  from  voting  in  person  at  the  general  court. 
Usually  each  town  was  allowed  to  fix  the  date  on  which  it 
would  elect  its  deputies,  provided,  it  may  be  assumed,  that 
this  was  done  a  sufficient  time  before  the  meeting  of  the  gen- 

l^Ntw  Haven  Colonial  Records,  383;   2  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  567, 
568. 

JI  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  *  Ibid.,  140. 

4  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  5. 

6  Laws,  1638,  Brigham,  40;    II  Plymouth  Colony  Retards,  10. 

6  I  New  Haven   Colonial  Records,  129;   2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  131. 

1  See  pp.  4,  5,  IO,  14,  15  ante. 

8  See  Plymouth,  Laws,  1652;   Brigham,  94. 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

eral  court.  Such  was  the  rule  in  New  Haven,  where  deputies 
were  separately  chosen  for  the  legislative  courts  which  met 
in  April,  and  for  the  election  courts  which  met  in  October.1 
In  Rhode  Island  deputies  were  chosen  for  the  October  court 
at  a  town  meeting  held  on  the  last  Tuesday  of  August,  and 
for  the  May  court  (of  election  when  proxies  were  to  be  de- 
livered) on  the  first  Tuesday  of  March.*  In  1744  the  date 
of  the  spring  election  was  changed  to  the  third  Wednesday 
in  April.3  Hartford,  like  Rhode  Island  and  New  Haven,  re- 
quired deputies  to  be  elected  semi-annually,  viz:  before  the 
April  court  of  election  and  before  the  September  legislative 
court.  The  constables  of  each  town  were  to  be  notified  by 
the  secretary  or  by  the  governor  of  the  colony  one  month 
before  the  date  of  the  semi-annual  courts,  and  fourteen  days, 
or  less,  before  the  meeting  of  special  courts.  The  demo- 
cratic character  of  the  Hartford  government  as  established 
by  the  constitution  of  1638  is  shown  by  the  provision  that 
freemen  could  petition  the  governor  if  courts  were  not  called 
as  often  as  seemed  necessary,  and  if  he  refused  to  order  an 
election  the  freemen  could  empower  the  constable  to  hold  one.4 
Under  the  Connecticut  charter  the  date  on  which  the  depu- 
ties to  the  October  court  were  chosen  was  the  third  Tuesday 
in  September,  and  for  the  May  court  the  last  Tuesday  in 
April.  The  law  also  provided  that  on  both  days  the  elec- 
tion should  begin  at  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning.5  Some 
years  later  the  Monday  next  following  the  first  Tuesday  in 
April 6  became  the  legal  date  of  the  spring  election. 

In  some  of  the  proprietary  colonies,  where  there  were  no 
general  courts  of  election,  assemblymen  were  chosen  on  a 

1 1  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  51,  58,  69,  114,  129. 

2  16  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  255.  a  17  Geo.  II,  Ibid.,  287. 

4  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21. 

5  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  131;  4  idem,  223;   Session  Laws,  30. 

6  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  297. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

day  fixed  by  law.  East  Jersey,  for  example,  held  elections 
on  March  26th  of  each  year,1  and  West  Jersey  on  March 
4th  for  commissioners,2  and  October  ist  for  deputies.3 
Writs  were  to  be  issued  if  necessary,4  and  in  1682  the  date 
was  changed  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  second  month.5 
Pennsylvania  originally  selected  as  the  date  of  her  elections 
the  twentieth  day  of  the  twelfth  month,8  but  later  changed  it 
to  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month.7  The  thirteenth  day  of 
the  third  month  was  the  date  for  sheriff  and  coroner  elec- 
tions.8 After  1705,  October  ist  was  the  day  on  which  both 
representatives  and  county  officers  were  elected.9 

Locke's  Constitution  designated  the  first  Tuesday  in  Sep- 
tember of  each  alternate  year  as  the  day  on  which  the  free- 
holders of  the  precincts  should  elect  representatives  to  the 
Carolina  Parliament.10  Writs  were  issued,11  and  the  steward 
was  required  to  give  thirty  days'  notice  in  case  the  election 
was  to  be  held  at  other  than  the  customary  place.  North  Car- 
olina also  selected  the  first  Tuesday  in  September  as  the  date 
for  elections.12  An  early  statute  of  New  Hampshire,  and  one 
that  was  disallowed,  because  it  was  said  to  be  copied  from  the 
laws  of  Massachusetts,  required  the  constables  of  the  towns 

1  Constitution  of   1683,  arts,  i,  ii,  Learning  and   Spicer,  153;    I  New  "Jersey 
Archives,  395. 

2  Concessions  and  Agreements,  Art.  iii;   Learning  and  Spicer,  385. 

3  Ibid.,  Art.  xxxii.  4  Learning  and  Spicer,  423. 

5  Laws,  1682,  chap.  10;  Learning  and  Spicer,  455;  later  changes,  Ibid.,  533. 

6  Frame  of  1682,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  33. 

7  Act  of  Settlement  of  1682,  Colden,  History  of  the  Five  Nations,  245. 

8 Frame  of   1682,  §    16,  I  Pennsylvania   Colonial   Records  42;    Markham's 
Frame,  1696,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  49. 

9  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

10  Art.  75,  I  Cooper,  43;   I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  199. 

11  I  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  181,  377,  696,  etc. 

12  Laws,  1715,  chap.  IO;   2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 


1 06  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

to  hold  elections  of  representatives  on  the  first  Monday  in 
February.1 

In  England  the  lord  chancellor,  lord  keeper,  or  lords  com- 
missioners of  the  great  seal  issued  writs  for  a  parliamentary 
election.  They  were  ordered  to  act  "with  as  much  expedi- 
tion as  the  same  may  be  done."2  In  the  American  colonies 
these  officials  did  not  exist,  so  that  the  power  of  issuing  pre- 
rogative writs  was  usually  vested  in  the  governor  as  the  legal 
representative  of  the  crown.  Thus  in  Massachusetts  Bay  a 
statute  provided  that  writs  should  be  signed  by  the  governor 
and  addressed  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  several  counties.3  This 
was  also  the  rule  in  New  Hampshire,4  where  we  find  that  the 
secretary  was  allowed  a  fee  of  five  shillings  for  every  writ 
sent  to  a  sheriff  or  marshal.  The  marshal  was  allowed  a  fee 
of  ten  shillings  for  his  services.5  In  Virginia  the  secretary 
was  allowed  a  hogshead  of  tobacco  for  each  writ,  and  was 
liable  to  a  fine  for  neglect  to  deliver  the  writ  to  the  sheriff.6 
The  governor  of  New  York  signed  the  writs;7  but  the  earli- 
est statute  on  the  general  subject  of  elections  in  the  last 
named  colony  provided  that  the  secretary  or  the  clerk  of 
the  crown  should  issue  the  writs  with  as  much  expedition  as 
possible,  and  deliver  them  under  the  seal  to  the  sheriff  of 
each  county.8 

In  Maryland  writs  were  issued  in  the  name  of  the  lord 

1  Act  1680,  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396;  I  Fanner,  New  Hamp- 
shire Historical  Collections,  203. 

2  Statute  ^  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25. 

*  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  38;    I  Ames  and  Goodell,  89. 

*  I  Geo.  II,  chap.  107,  Fowle  ed.,  1761,  142;  ed.,  1771,  166. 
5  3  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  213,  215. 

8  14  Car.  II,  Act  83,  2  Hening,  105,  203. 

*.Gov.  Dongan's  Commission,  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  331. 

8  1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

proprietor  by  his  representatives,1  while  under  the  royal 
government  from  1689  to  1715,  this  was  done  by  the  gov- 
ernor in  the  name  of  the  crown.2  In  Virginia  the  method 
of  calling  an  election  was  prescribed  in  detail.  Writs  must 
be  signed  by  the  governor  or  commander-in-chief  of  the 
dominion  for  the  time  being,  and  the  seal  of  the  colony 
affixed.  They  were  then  to  be  delivered  to  the  secretary 
forty  days  before  the  date  set  for  the  meeting  of  the 
assembly.  The  secretary  within  ten  days  after  receiving 
them  must  transmit  them  to  the  sheriffs  in  the  counties.* 
Georgia  required  the  governor  to  obtain  the  consent  of  his 
council  before  he  issued  the  writs.  They  were  then  to  be 
directed  to  the  provost  marshal,  the  official  who  had  control 
of  elections  in  this  province.4  Writs  are  also  mentioned  in 
New  Jersey5  and  South  Carolina,  and  in  the  latter  colony 
they  were  issued6  "by  Governor  and  Council."7 

The  form  to  be  used  in  writs  for  the  election  of  assembly- 
men was  sometimes  prescribed  by  statute.  Examples  of 
these  and  also  of  the  writs  used  for  calling  the  first  elections 
in  several  of  the  colonies  are  given  in  the  first  appendix  to 
this  work.  It  is  said  that  the  writs  issued  in  1680  by  Presi- 
dent Cutts,  of  New  Hampshire,  in  calling  the  first  assembly 
of  that  province,  mentioned  by  name  the  persons  who  were 
to  vote  in  each  town.8  This  was  also  done  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  Maryland,  where  general  writs  were  issued  naming 
the  freemen  who  were  to  vote  in  a  particular  district ;  and 

JAct  1678,  Maryland  Archives,  I  Assembly,  60;  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore, 
chap,  ii  (1716.),  Bacon's  Laws. 

2 4  Will,  and  Mary,  chap.  76;  4  Anne,  chap.  42;  8  Geo.  I,  chap,  42. 
$4  Anne,  chap,  ii,  3  Hening,  236.  *  Act  June  9th,  1761. 

5  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40;  NevilPs  Laws,  142. 

6  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  249.  'Act  17  16,  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683. 
8  See  I  Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  177. 


108  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

also  special  writs  citing  gentlemen  mentioned  by  name  to 
appear  in  person  at  the  assembly.1 

The  period  of  time  which  must  elapse  between  the  signing 
or  test  of  the  writ  and  the  day  on  which  it  was  to  be  re- 
turned, was  generally  forty  days.2  In  Virginia  the  sheriff 
was  required  to  hold  his  court  of  election  at  least  twenty 
days  after  receiving  his  writ,3  while  in  Maryland  the  date  was 
fixed  at  not  less  than  ten  days  after  making  proclamation,* 
although  an  act  of  1678  had  provided  that  the  election  must 
take  place  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  proclamation.5 
An  English  statute  passed  soon  after  the  colonial  period,  re- 
quired the  election  to  begin  between  the  tenth  and  sixteenth 
day  after  proclamation.6 

The  place  at  which  an  election  was  to  be  held  was  not 
usually  described  definitely  in  the  laws.  Thus,  in  New  York 
it  was  provided  that  it  should  be  "  at  the  most  public  and 
usual  place  of  election  where  the  same  has  most  usually 

1See  Maryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  especially  Act 
1638-9,  page  74. 

2 New  York  "between  teste  and  return  of  summons"  (n  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74, 
Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28)  ;  Maryland  (2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  1 1,  Bacon's 
Laws);  Virginia  forty  days  "before  the  day  of  return"  (14  Car.  II,  Act  83,  2 
Hening,  105);  South  Carolina  "before  session"  (Act  1716,  no.  365,  2  Cooper, 
683);  Georgia  (Act  June  gth,  1761).  This  was  also  the  English  rule  (Statute  7 
and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25).  In  Massachusetts,  writs  were  issued  thirty  days  (Laws, 
1692-3,  chap.  38;  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  89),  and  in  New  Hampshire,  fifteen  days 
in  advance  of  the  date  fixed  for  the  assembly  (i  Geo.  II,  chap.  107,  Fowle  ed., 
1761,  142;  ed.,  1771,  166.  Ten  days  seem  to  have  been  proposed  as  the  limit,  4 
Provincial  Papers,  114).  Governor  Dongan  was  instructed  to  send  out  his  writs 
thirty  days  before  the  meeting  of  the  first  New  York  assembly  (3  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  331). 

3  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  236. 

4  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap,  n,  Bacon's  Laws. 

5  Maryland  Archives,  3  Assembly,  60. 

6  Statute  25  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  84;  see  also  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  §  iii. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


IO9 


been."1  Sometimes,  however,  the  precise  place  was  indi- 
cated.2 In  Orange  county,  New  York,  because  of  the  diffi- 
culty in  crossing  the  mountains  which  intersected  it,  two 
polling  places  were  provided.  By  the  law  of  1748  the 
sheriff  was  required  to  begin  the  election  at  one  of  the  places 
designated,  and  then  adjourn  to  the  other  for  not  more  than 
six  nor  less  than  ten  days.8 

For  special  elections  to  fill  vacancies,  the  general  rule  was 
that  writs  should  be  issued  by  the  governor  upon  address  of 
the  assembly.4  A  law  enacted  in  Virginia  in  1763  seems  to 
give  the  sheriff  power  to  hold  a  special  election  on  his  own 
motion.5  In  Pennsylvania  it  was  at  first  the  law  that  the 
proprietor  or  his  representative  should  send  out  writs  for 
special  elections.6  Finally,  however,  the  secretary  issued 
them  upon  order  of  the  speaker.  If  the  order  was  not  com- 
plied with  in  two  days,  the  speaker  could  issue  writs  under 
his  own  hand  and  seal,  but  in  the  name  of  the  governor. 
The  sheriff  was  required  to  hold  special  elections  within  five 
days  after  receipt  of  the  writ.7  In  Maryland  special  elections 

1  i  i  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;  compare  English  Statute,  7  and 
8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  3;   New  Jersey,  "most  public  place"  in  county  (12  Geo. 
I,  chap.  40,  NevilFs  IMWS,  142)  ;   Virginia,  "  in  those  places  where  county  courts 
are  held"  (20  Car.  I,  Act  i,  I  Hening,  299;  4  Anne,  chap,  ii,  3  Hening,  236). 

2  See  for  Westchester  county,  New  York,  "  Presbyterian  meeting  house  "  (25 
Geo.  II,  chap.  911;   Van  Schaack's  Laws,  305,  also  281);   Philadelphia  (6  Geo. 
Ill,  chap.  8,  §  12;    Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  323);  North  Carolina  (Laws,  1715, 
2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213;  8  Geo.  II,  chap,  ii,  Appendix  B  of  this 
work.) 

3  21  Geo.  II,  chap.  875,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  281. 

4  South  Carolina,  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  xviii,  2  Cooper,  683);   Georgia  (Act  June 
1761);    Semble,  Virginia  (u  Will.  Ill,  chap,  ii,  3  Hening,  172). 

5  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  17,  7  Hening,  519. 

6  Laws,  1 700,  chap.  28,  incorporated  by  reference  in  Penn's  Charter  of  Privi- 
leges, and  published  in  Appendix  B  of  the  present  work.     Also  Frame  of  Gov- 
ernment, 1696. 

7  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 


I  10  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

were  called  by  writs  issued  by  the  speaker,  without  regard  to 
the  time  between  the  test  and  the  return,  provided  the  ordi- 
nary notice  was  given  in  counties  and  a  notice  of  four  days 
in  cities  and  boroughs.1  In  New  Jersey  under  Carteret's 
rule,  the  governor  was  empowered,  in  1664  to  issue  writs  for 
special  elections  to  fill  vacancies  caused  by  the  death  of 
members.2  Under  the  royal  government  of  the  last  named 
province,  a  law  was  passed  declaring  that  any  member  by 
accepting  an  office  of  profit  from  the  crown  or  the  governor 
vacated  his  seat,  and  a  new  writ  issued  just  as  if  he  were 
actually  dead.  In  such  a  case,  however,  he  could  be  re- 
chosen.3  This  is  an  English  custom  in  existence  at  the 
present  day. 

In  regard  to  the  calling  of  special  elections  the  English 
practice  was  as  follows :  In  case  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons became  vacant  during  a  recess  of  Parliament,  the 
speaker  issued  a  warrant  to  the  clerk  of  the  crown  and  the 
latter  sent  out  a  writ.4  If  a  vacancy  occurred  during  a 
session  of  Parliament,  an  address  of  the  House  to  the  king 
was  necessary. 

§  2.  Publication  of  the  Writ.  In  order  to  give  the  voters 
due  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  an  election,  various 
methods  of  publishing  the  writs  were  employed.  Thus  the 
Hartford  Constitution  of  1638  provided  that  immediately  on 
receipt  of  his  warrant  for  the  election  of  deputies,  the  con- 
stable of  each  town  should  go  from  house  to  house  and  give 
distinct  notice,  or  else  should  publish  his  writ  in  some  as- 
sembly.5 No  summons  was  needed  for  the  general  court  of 
election  at  Hartford."  In  Massachusetts  under  the  royal 

1 3  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap,  i,  §  2,  Bacon's  Laws. 

2  Learning  and  Spicer,  19. 

3  3  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  Alli'nson's  Laws,  83;  NevilPs  Laws,  195. 

4  See  Statute  10  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  41. 

5  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  8  Session  Laws,  30. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  !  j  j 

government  the  sheriffs  sent  out  precepts  to  the  selectmen 
of  the  towns  in  their  counties,  commanding  them  to  assem- 
ble the  voters  and  proceed  to  the  election  of  representatives.1 

The  method  to  be  followed  in  New  York  was  prescribed 
more  in  detail.  Each  sheriff  endorsed  upon  the  writ  the  day 
of  its  receipt.  Within  six  days  thereafter  he  was  required 
to  give  public  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  election. 
He  also  gave  six  days'  notice  to  each  constable  in  his  baili- 
wick, and  the  latter  was  required  to  publish  his  precept  at 
the  most  frequented  place  of  each  town.2  This  method  of 
publishing  a  writ  by  means  of  precepts  addressed  by  the 
election  officer  to  the  local  officials  of  his  district,  also  pre- 
vailed in  England.3  Notice  was  given  in  New  Jersey  at  least 
twenty  days  before  the  election,  by  the  sheriff  of  each  county 
posting  advertisements  at  three  of  the  best  known  places 
in  his  bailiwick  ;4  while  in  Georgia  a  notice  of  ten  days  must 
be  given  by  affixing  proclamations  in  one  or  more  "  noted" 
places  in  each  parish,  district,  town  or  village  returning  a 
member.5 

For  special  elections  in  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware,  an  ef- 
fective method  of  publication  was  provided,  in  order,  we  may 
suppose,  to  compensate  for  the  short  notice  of  two  days  that 
was  permitted.  The  writ  was  to  be  read  by  the  sheriff  or 
his  deputy  in  the  capital  town,  or  in  the  most  public  place  in 
his  bailiwick,  between  the  hours  of  ten  in  the  morning  and 
two  in  the  afternoon.  Immediately  upon  receipt  of  the  writ, 
notices  were  posted  upon  some  tree  or  house  in  the  way 
leading  from  each  township  or  precinct  to  the  place  of 
election,  and  upon  every  court  house  and  "  fixed  meeting 

1  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  36,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  80;    1692-3,  chap.  38,  ibid,  89. 
2 1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Laws. 
*  Statute  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25. 

4  12  Geo.  II,  chap.  40,  NevilFs  Laws,  142. 

5  Act  June  gth,  1761,  which  is  published  in  Appendix  B  of  the  present  work. 


I  1 2  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

house  for  Religious  worship "  in  the  county.  Every  con- 
stable was  to  receive  due  notice  and  was  required  to  promul- 
gate the  same  immediately.1 

In  Virginia  the  original  custom  was  for  the  sheriff  to  give 
six  days'  notice  of  an  election  by  going  about  from  house  to 
house  within  ten  days  after  he  received  his  writ.2  Strange 
as  it  may  seem,  the  method  of  summons  was  found  to  be  de- 
fective, and  in  1662  a  more  thorough  system  was  provided. 
Within  three  days  after  receiving  his  writ,  each  sheriff  de- 
livered a  copy  of  the  same,  endorsed  with  the  time  and 
the  place  of  the  election,  to  the  minister  or  the  reader  of 
every  parish  in  his  county.  According  to  the  provisions  of 
the  law,  the  writ  was  then  read  to  the  people  in  every  church 
and  chapel  after  divine  service,  and  the  reading  was  re- 
peated weekly  until  the  time  appointed  for  the  election. 
The  ministers  must  return  their  copies  to  the  sheriff  with  an 
attestation  that  they  had  performed  the  duty  required. 
Heavy  fines  were  imposed  for  neglect.3  In  Maryland  elec- 
tion proclamations  were  read  and  posted  in  all  churches, 
chapels,  and  other  public  places,4  while  in  North  Carolina 
they  were  made  on  three  successive  Sundays  immediately 
after  divine  service.5  Publication  was  effected  in  South 
Carolina  by  the  managers  posting  a  notice  in  writing  on  the 
door  of  a  church,  or  if  there  was  no  church,  at  some  public 
place,  three  Sundays  before  an  election.6  This  method  of 
giving  notice  is  instructive  as  showing  that  the  Southern  colo- 
nists seldom  came  together  except  on  Sunday,  and  then  for 
religious  purposes. 

1  Laws  1700,  chap.  28,  published  in  Appendix  B   of  this  work;  4  Anne,  chap. 
129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

2  20  Car.  I,  Act.  i;   5-6  Com.,  Act  vii;    I  Hening,  299,  411. 

8  14  Car.  II.,  Act  50,  2  Hening,  82;  4  Anne,  chap,  ii,  3  Hening,  236. 

4  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42;   2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap,  n,  Bacon's  Laws. 

5  33  Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  §  vi,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247. 

6  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  xv,  2  Cooper,  683. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  !  r  3 

When  a  writ  was  issued  for  a  special  election  in  Virginia, 
it  became  the  duty  of  the  sheriff  to  send  a  notice  of  the  time 
and  place  to  every  freeholder  in  his  county,  and  the  election 
must  be  held  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  receipt  of  the 
writ.1 

§  3.  Hours  of  Election.  In  England,  a  statute  of  23  Henry 
VP  had  provided  that  county  courts  for  the  election  of 
knights  of  the  shire  must  be  held  "  betwixt  the  hour  of  8  and 
the  hour  of  1 1  before  noon."  This  practice  of  requiring  an 
election  to  be  held  within  certain  hours  of  the  day  prevailed 
to  some  extent  in  this  country.  Thus  in  Connecticut  I  find 
that  the  semi-annual  elections  of  deputies  in  the  towns  were 
held  at  nine  o'clock.3  In  Massachusetts,  however,  certain 
hours  were  fixed  for  the  nomination  of  assistants ;  and  in 
1680  a  law  was  enacted  requiring  the  courts  of  election  to 
begin  at  eight  in  the  morning.4  No  enactments  except  those 
of  Massachusetts  have  been  found  which  tend  to  prove  that 
it  was  customary  in  New  England  to  begin  the  sessions  of 
the  general  courts  of  election  at  any  particular  hour  of  the 
day.  In  West  Jersey,  we  find  that  elections  were  to  begin 
at  nine  o'clock,5  and  in  New  Jersey  at  any  time  between  the 
hours  of  ten  and  twelve.6 

In  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware,7  the  hours  of  ten  in  the 
morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon  were  made  the  limits  of 
time  within  which  an  election  must  be  held.  In  North 
Carolina  it  was  customary  to  have  a  morning  session,  begin- 
ning before  ten  o'clock  and  lasting  until  one,  and  then  in 
the  afternoon  the  polls  were  open  from  half  past  two  until 

1 II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2;  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §viii,  3  Hening,  172,  236. 

2  Chap.  14.  3  Session  Laws,  30. 

4  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  292.  5  Learning  and  Spicer,  385. 

6  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40;  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 

7  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67.    7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and 
Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;   Adams  ed.,  1797,  147. 


I  1 4  HIS  TORY  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

sunset,  unless  the  candidates  consented  to  have  them  closed 
before  that  time.1 

For  a  time  two  sessions  of  the  court  of  election  were  held 
in  South  Carolina,  namely :  from  eight  to  twelve  in  the 
morning  and  from  two  until  six  in  the  afternoon,  for  two 
consecutive  days.12  After  1716  there  was  but  one  session, 
and  the  polls  were,  according  to  successive  enactments,  to 
remain  open  from  sunrise  till  sunset,8  from  seven  a.  m.  till 
seven  p.  m.,4  and,  finally,  from  nine  till  four.5  In  Georgia 
the  hours  were  from  nine  in  the  morning  until  six  in  the 
afternoon,  although  the  poll  might  be  concluded  two  hours 
after  the  last  voter  appeared,  or  at  any  other  time  if  the  can- 
didates present  consented.6  In  the  last  named  province, 
adjournments  were  permitted  at  convenient  hours,  and, 
unless  a  scrutiny  were  demanded,  elections  were  not  to  con- 
tinue for  more  than  ten  days. 

§  4.  Election  Officers.  In  considering  the  topic  of  election 
officers,  it  may  be  laid  down  as  the  general  rule  that,  outside 
of  New  England,  the  sheriff,  by  virtue  of  his  capacity  as  head 
of  the  county,  acted  as  the  presiding  and  returning  officer  at 
all  elections.7  The  provost  marshal  was  the  manager  of 
elections  in  Georgia,8  and  for  a  while  in  North  Carolina.9  In 
South  Carolina  the  size  of  the  counties  was  so  great  that 
electors  were  forced  to  travel  long  distances  in  order  to  v.ote. 

'17  Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  Davis  and  Swann,  177;   33  Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  Davis  ed., 
1773,  247.     This  last  act  seems  to  require  the  polls  to  be  kept  open  until  sunset. 
2  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  249.  3  Act  1716,  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683. 

4  Act  1719,  no.  394,  3  Cooper,  50.  5  Act  1721,  no.  446,  3  Cooper,  135- 

6  Act  June  9th,  1761. 

7  New  York:   II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;   New  Jersey: 
12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laivs,  142;   Maryland:  Maryland  Archives,  3  As- 
sembly, 60;  Virginia:  14  Car.  I,  Act  xix,  I  Hening,  227,  etc;  North  Carolina:  17 
Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177;   South  Carolina:  Act  1704,  no. 
227,  2  Cooper,  249. 

8  Act  June  9th,  1761.  9  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  l  l  $ 

Accordingly  the  parish  was  constituted  the  election  district, 
and  the  whole  management  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
church-wardens,  although  the  governor  could  appoint  substi- 
tutes for  them.  Surveyors  were  ordered  to  settle  disputes, 
by  laying  out  the  boundaries  of  the  parishes.  The  repeal  of 
this  law  by  the  proprietors  caused  the  revolution  of  1719, 
and  it  was  natural  that  it  should  be  revived  by  the  royal 
assembly  of  1 720.'  We  find  in  those  New  York  manors,  which 
were  represented  in  the  assembly,  that  a  returning  officer  was 
vested  with  the  powers  of  a  sheriff  in  the  matter  of  elec- 
tions,2 while  in  Maryland  like  powers  were  exercised  by  the 
mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen  of  cities  and  boroughs.3  In 
the  latter  province,  elections  were  held  in  full  county  court,4 
and  "  in  such  manner  and  form  as  the  laws  of  England  and 
this  province  doe  direct  and  provide."  For  this  purpose  the 
sheriff  was  empowered  to  summon  four  or  more  commis- 
sioners of  his  county,  who,  with  the  clerk,  were  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  court.5  Some  years  later  the  court  consisted  of 
three  or  more  justices  of  the  peace,  "whereof  one  to  be  of 
the  quorum,"  together  with  the  clerk  of  the  county  court.6 
In  Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  North  Carolina  if  the  sheriff 
was  unable  to  attend,  the  coroner  was  authorized  to  act  as 
manager  of  elections.7  In  Pennsylvania  the  sheriff  and  his 
deputy  or  the  coroner  and  his  appointee,  and  in  case  of  the 
failure  of  all  these,  two  freeholders  elected  by  the  majority 

'Act  1716,  DO.  365,  2  Cooper,  683;  Act  1719,  no.  394,  3  Cooper,  50. 
*  8  Geo.  II,  chap.  607,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  183.  3  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42. 

4 "  Electionem  tuam  in  pleno  comitatu  tuo  factam,"  as  required  by  English 
statute  of  7  Henry  IV,  chap.  15. 

5  Act  1678,  Maryland  Archives,  3  Assembly,  60. 

6  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42,  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap,  n,  Bacon's  Laws. 

7  Pennsylvania :  4  Anne,  chap.  1 29,  Franklin  ed.,  1 742,  67 ;  Delaware :  7  Geo.  II, 
chap.  6ia,  Franklin   and   Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  147;   North 
Carolina:  12  Geo.  Ill,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  505. 


I  i  $  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

of  the  electors  present,  were  constituted  judges  of  the  elec- 
tion.1 

Besides  the  judges  already  mentioned,  Pennsylvania  and 
Delaware  provided  officers  known  as  inspectors,  whose  chief 
duty  was  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  voters.  At  first 
these  inspectors  were  nominated  by  a  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors,2 and  their  names  were  successively  proposed  by  the 
judges  at  the  place  of  election  until  a  certain  number*  had 
been  chosen  by  a  fair  majority  of  votes.  The  inspectors 
were  put  under  oath  and  were  required  to  duly  attend  the 
election  throughout  its  continuance.  Besides  judging  the 
qualifications  of  electors  it  was  their  duty  "to  well  and  truly 
and  faithfully  assist  the  sheriff,  coroner  and  other  person  who 
shall  by  virtue  of  the  before  recited  act,  officiate  as  judge  of 
the  said  Elections ;  to  prevent  all  Frauds  and  Deceits  what- 
soever of  Electors  or  others  in  the  management  or  carrying 
on  of  the  same,  and  in  causing  the  poll  or  votes  at  such  elec- 
tions to  be  taken  and  cast  up  according  to  law."4  In  order  to 
insure  a  satisfactory  performance  of  their  duties,  it  was  neces- 
sary that  the  inspectors  should  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
the  circumstances  of  all  the  voters,  and  for  this  reason  the 
statutes  required  that  care  should  be  taken  to  secure  in- 
spectors from  different  parts  of  the  county. 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  was  not  done,  and  in  1739  it 
was  found  necessary  to  so  change  the  method  of  selecting 
these  officers  so  that  the  desired  result  might  be  attained. 

'4  Anne,  chap,  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67;  Delaware;  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia, 
Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  147.  In  Delaware,  the 
justices  of  the  peace  seem  to  have  been  judges  in  case  of  the  failure  of  the  coro- 
ner or  sheriff  to  act;  12  Gco.  Ill,  chap.  207,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500. 

v  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

3  Eight  for  Philadelphia,  six  for  Philadelphia  county,  and  four  for  each  of  the 
other  two  counties. 

4  1 3  Geo.  I,  chap.  284,  Franklin  ed.,  1 742,  346. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


117 


For  this  purpose  each  justice  of  the  peace  was  re- 
quired to  divide  his  county  into  eight  parts  or  hundreds, 
as  nearly  equal  in  size  as  was  possible.  On  receiving 
official  notice  of  the  division,  it  became  the  duty  of  the 
sheriff  to  inform  the  constable  of  each  town.  The  free- 
holders met  in  their  towns  on  September  25th  of  each 
year,  at  a  place  appointed  by  the  constable,  or  in  case 
of  his  failure  to  act,  by  the  overseer  of  the  poor,  and 
pro.ceeded  to  ballot  for  inspectors  to  serve  at  the  reg- 
ular election  which  took  place  on  the  ist  of  October.  At 
these  elections,  which  were  held  between  the  hours  of  nine 
in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,1  the  constables  and 
freeholders  acted  as  judges.  One  "able  and  discreet  free- 
holder, who  may  be  supposed  to  be  best  acquainted  with  the 
Estates  and  Circumstances  of  the  Inhabitants,"  was  chosen 
from  each  township  to  act  as  inspector.  The  names  of  all 
so  chosen  were  to  be  returned  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county 
before  nine  o'clock  on  the  day  of  the  regular  election.2 
Upon  receiving  the  reports  of  the  the  several  constables,  the 
sheriff  was  required  to  call  in  four  freeholders,  and  in  their 
presence  write  the  names  of  all  the  nominees  on  "  papers  cut 
and  folded,  &c.,  as  near  as  may  be  of  equal  size  and  big- 
ness." Those  returned  from  each  district  of  the  county  were 
placed  in  a  separate  box,  and  then,  "  some  indifferent  per- 
son" drew  a  name  from  each  receptacle.  The  persons  whose 
names  were  drawn,  if  they  were  present  at  the  election, 
served  as  inspectors  and  were  proclaimed  as  such  to  the  as- 
sembled voters.  In  Philadelphia  a  similar  course  was  pur- 
sued by  the  inhabitants  of  each  ward.  The  names  of  four 

'Nine  and  three:  16  Geo.  II,  chap.  351,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  546.  A  later  act 
fixed  September  27th  as  the  day,  and  from  twelve  till  five  as  the  hours  in  the  coun- 
ties, and  from  ten  till  four  in  Philadelphia.  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  Hall  and  Sellers 
ed.,  1775,  323. 

2  October  1st. 


I  i  8  H1STOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

persons  were  drawn  on  the  day  of  election,  and  they  were 
the  inspectors  for  the  districts,  while  the  six  persons  whose 
names  remained  in  the  boxes  were  the  inspectors  for  Phila- 
delphia.1 

A  similar  system  prevailed  in  Delaware,2  where  the  inspec- 
tors were  judges  concurrently  with  the  sheriff  or  coroner,  as 
the  case  might  be,  although  in  case  of  an  equal  division  of 
opinion  the  latter  had  a  double  vote.3  As  was  originally  the 
rule  in  Pennsylvania,  the  Delaware  inspectors  were  at  first 
chosen  at  the  county  elections.  It  was  not  until  about  1766 
that  they  were  elected  in  the  towns.  The  time  appointed  for 
that  purpose  was  the  fifteenth  of  September,  or  the  following 
day,  if  the  fifteenth  fell  on  Sunday.  The  collector  or  the 
overseer  of  the  poor,  assisted  by  two  freeholders,  acted  as 
judges  of  these  town  or  hundred  elections,  which  took  place 
between  the  hours  of  twelve  o'clock  noon  and  six  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon.  Ten  days'  notice  was  given  by  putting  up 
advertisements  throughout  the  hundreds.  The  collector,  or 
overseer,  as  the  case  might  be,  together  with  the  judges, 
issued  certificates  of  election  to  the  persons  chosen,  and 
these  were  presented  to  the  sheriff  before  ten  o'clock  in  the 
morning  of  the  day  appointed  for  the  election  of  representa- 
tives. The  sheriff  publicly  proclaimed  the  names  of  those 
chosen  for  inspectors,  and  if  any  of  them  failed  to  appear, 
their  places  were  filled  by  the  votes  of  the  freeholders 
attending  the  election  from  the  hundred  whose  inspector  was 
absent.4 

The  personal  knowledge  of  these  inspectors  does  not  ap- 

1  12  Geo.  II,  chap.  345;    16  Geo.  II,  chap.  351,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  514,  546: 
19  Geo.  II,  chap.  2;  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8;  13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  13,  Hall  and  Sellers 
ed.,  1775,  202,  323. 

2  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  188;   Adams  ed.,  1797,  429. 

3  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  207,  §  I;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500. 

4  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  188;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  429. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


119 


pear  to  have  been  relied  on  as  much  as  the  language  of  the 
statutes  would  seem  to  indicate.  They  had  power  to  ex- 
amine voters  on  oath  in  regard  to  their -qualifications,  and 
were  also  assisted  by  separate  alphabetical  lists  of  the  names 
and  rates  of  all  the  taxables  taken  from  the  last  assessment 
of  each  town,  ward  or  district.  These  lists  were  to  be  fur- 
nished to  the  sheriff  at  least  one  day  before  the  election  by 
the  commissioners  of  the  county,  at  a  compensation  of  half 
a  crown  for  each  list,  but  under  penalty  of  fifty  pounds  for 
failure  to  deliver  them.1 

In  some  of  the  colonies  inspectors  were  appointed  in  the 
interest  of  the  candidates  rather  than  in  that  of  the  govern- 
ment. Thus  in  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  the  Carolinas, 
each  candidate  was  empowered  to  nominate  and  the  sheriff 
to  appoint  as  many  inspectors  as  there  were  clerks  to  take 
the  poll.2  Such  was  also  the  custom  in  England.3 

When  a  poll  was  required  the  sheriff  was  usually  author- 
ized to  employ  clerks  appointed  and  sworn  by  himself.  It 
was  usually  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  sheriff  to  designate 
the  number  of  clerks,  although  in  New  Jersey*  the  candidates 
seem  to  have  had  power  to  appoint  them ;  while  at  one  time 
in  Pennsylvania5  the  inspectors  decided  on  the  number.  A 
later  statute6  in  the  last  named  province  required  the  sheriff 
to  appoint  two  or  more  clerks  of  the  age  of  twenty-one 

16  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §  8,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  223. 

*  New  York:  n  Will.  III.,  chap.  74,  §  5,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;  New 
Jersey:  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  NevilPs  Laws,  142;  North  Carolina:  Act  1715,2 
North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213;  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  Davis  and  Swann, 
*77;  33  Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247.  This  last  act  seems  to  allow 
but  two  inspectors,  who  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  candidates  collectively,  or 
on  their  refusal  to  do  so,  by  the  sheriff.' 

3  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  *  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  NevilPs  Laws,  142. 

5  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

6 6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §§  I,  3,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  323. 


12Q  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

years.1  That  the  candidates  themselves  also  had  a  certain 
amount  of  official  capacity  at  elections  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  their  consent  was  sometimes  necessary  in  order  to  close 
or  adjourn  the  poll.2 

For  the  election  of  deputies  and  the  collecting  of  proxies 
in  New  England,  the  town  was  the  unit;  and  this  was 
possibly  due  to  the  lack,  at  an  early  date,  of  an  efficient 
county  organization.  The  duties  of  an  election  officer  were 
therefore  performed  by  the  constable  of  each  town.3  In 
Rhode  Island  the  chief  officer  of  the  town4  was  perhaps  the 
town  clerk,5  but  at  a  later  date  the  whole  management  of 
elections  in  Rhode  Island  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
grand  committee  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature.6  Under 
the  royal  government  of  Massachusetts  Bay  writs  were 
issued  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  counties,  but  the  direct  manage- 
ment of  elections  was  in  the  hands  of  the  constables  and 
selectmen  of  the  several  towns.7 

§  5.  Nomination  of  Candidates.  In  a  few  of  the  colonies 
we  find  that  a  more  or  less  thorough  system  of  nominating 
candidates  for  offices  of  a  general  character  prevailed. 
There  was  nothing  resembling  the  modern  method  of  nomi- 
nation by  opposing  parties,  but  the  plan  followed  seems  to 
have  been  practically  a  preliminary  election  for  the  purpose 

1  See  also  New  York,  n  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  5,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28.  (In 
this  and  other  respects  this  law  was  modelled  on  the  English  statute  of  7  and  8 
Will.  Ill,  chap.  25.)  Virginia,  11  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172. 

1  New  York,  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  7,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28;  Georgia. 
Act  June  9th,  1761. 

3  Massachusetts,  see  Title  Election,  Laws,  ed.,  1660,  27,  ed.,  1814,  105;  Con- 
necticut, I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21,  Session  Laws,  30. 

4  i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  150. 

5  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  208;   Franklin  ed.,  1730,  I. 
"Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

7  Laws,  1692-3,  chaps.  36,  38,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  80,  88,  89. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  I2i 

of  reducing  the  whole  number  of  eligible  candidates  by  a 
process  of  exclusion. 

The  first  definite  trace  of  such  a  system  appears  in  the 
Hartford  Constitution  of  1638,  in  which  it  was  provided 
that  no  person  could  be  newly  chosen  magistrate  unless  his 
name  had  been  proposed  at  the  general  court  in  September 
and  voted  upon  at  the  regular  court  of  elections  in  April. 
For  these  purposes  each  of  the  towns,  through  its  deputies, 
nominated  two  persons,  while  the  court  added  as  many  as 
it  judged  requisite.1  Something  similar  appears  to  have 
been  done  in  New  Haven,  for  there  is  a  provision  in  the 
statute  book  which  was  prepared  about  1648,  to  the  effect 
that  "  when  any  man  of  what  Plantation  soever,  shall  be  first 
proposed  for  Magistracy  within  this  jurisdiction,  reasonable 
notice  shall  be  first  given  to  all  the  Plantations  of  such  a 
purpose  or  desire,  that  all  the  Freemen  may  duly  consider 
or  informe  themselves."2  This  law  was  amended  by  an  act 
of  1662,  providing  that  in  case  no  nominations  were  made 
in  time  from  the  towns,  "  as  an  addition  to  those  now  in 
trust,"  the  freemen  present  at  the  election  could  nominate 
and  choose  the  magistrates.3  The  records  of  the  New 
Haven  jurisdiction  prior  to  1653  are  lost,  and  this  accounts 
for  the  fact  that  no  further  mention  of  the  law  as  given  in 
the  statute  book,  has  been  found.  The  act  of  1662  is  de- 
clared to  be  "  an  addition  to  ye  printed  law  for  ye  nomina- 
tion of  magistrates." 

Under  the  Connecticut  charter  the  Hartford  practice  ap- 
pears to  have  been  continued,  and  we  find  that  candidates 
were  nominated  "by  papers"  at  the  October  court,  in  order 
to  be  voted  upon  at  the  court  of  election  in  May."*  In  1689 

1  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  2 1 . 

'2  2  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  iv;   Laws,  ed.,  1656,  ibid.,  567,  8. 

3  Ibid.,  439,  479.  *2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  141. 


!  2  2  HI$  TOR  Y  OF  RLE  CTIONS 

a  different  method  was  introduced,  which  was  practically  a 
double  election  in  that  the  freemen  both  selected  the  nomi- 
nees and  voted  for  the  persons  nominated  when  these  were 
finally  put  up  for  election.  At  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning 
of  the  third  Tuesday  in  March  of  each  year,  the  freemen 
gathered  at  the  meeting  houses  of  their  respective  towns. 
Each  voter  there  gave  the  names  of  twenty  persons  whom 
he  judged  qualified  to  stand  for  election  in  the  following 
May  to  the  local  commissioner,  justice  of  the  peace,  con- 
stable or  some  townsman,  whose  duty  it  was  to  seal  them 
in  a  package  and  deliver  them  to  the  constable  of  the 
county  town.  The  latter  was  required  to  take  the  ballots 
himself  or  else  send  them  to  Hartford  by  a  person  appointed 
for  that  purpose  by  the  constables  of  the  county.  The  mes- 
sengers from  all  parts  of  the  colony  met  in  the  chamber  of 
the  general  court  on  the  last  Tuesday  in  March,  and  were 
sworn  as  canvassers  by  an  assistant  or  by  the  secretary  of 
the  colony.  The  ballots  were  then  compared  and  the  names 
of  the  twenty  persons  who  had  the  most  votes  were  returned 
to  the  towns  as  the  nominees  from  whom  the  governor,  dep- 
uty governor  and  assistants  were  to  be  chosen.1 

Three  years  afterwards  the  old  method  was  restored  and 
the  nominations  were  made  by  the  general  court.2  In  1696 
we  find  twenty-four  persons  were  nominated  as  assistants.3 
In  1697  a  law  was  passed  requiring  the  constable,  without 
awaiting  special  orders,  to  call  the  freemen  together  on  the 
third  Tuesday  in  September,  and  after  electing  deputies,  have 
them  hand  in  the  names  of  twenty  persons  "  fairly  written 
upon  a  piece  of  paper."  Instead  of  a  separate  canvass  by 
representatives  of  the  counties  as  in  1689,  it  was  provided 
that  the  names  of  the  persons  voted  for,  and  the  number  of 
votes  received  by  each,  should  be  entered  by  the  election 

'4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  II.  -Ibid,  8l.  3  Ibid.,  175. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES,  J2} 

officer  "  upon  office  oath,"  and  a  copy  of  such  entry  sent 
sealed,  to  the  general  court  at  its  October  meeting,  by  means 
of  the  representative  of  the  town.  There  the  votes  were 
canvassed  and  the  twenty  persons  having  the  highest 
number  were  declared  to  be  nominated.  Their  names  were 
sent  to  the  towns  by  the  secretary  of  the  colony,  together 
with  the  laws  passed  by  the  general  court,  although  afterwards 
he  was  ordered  to  have  the  list  of  names,  as  well  as  the  laws, 
prepared  by  the  public  printer  for  distribution.1  Until  after 
1 707  the  governor  and  deputy  governor  as  well  as  the  mag- 
istrates could  be  chosen  only  from  the  persons  nominated.* 
It  will  be  seen  that  under  this  system  electors  had  at  least 
six  months  within  which  to  decide  for  what  candidates  they 
should  vote. 

Massachusetts  was  the  only  other  colony  which  developed 
a  successful  method  of  nominations,  and  it  was  there 
applied  only  to  candidates  for  the  office  of  assistant.  As 
early  as  1631  we  find  a  faint  suggestion  of  nominations  in 
the  order  of  the  general  court  that  the  commons  should  pro- 
pose persons  whom  they  desired  to  have  chosen  as  assist- 
ants, and  "if  it  be  doubtfull  whethr  it  be  the  great1  pte  of 
the  comons  or  not,  it  shalbe  putt  to  the  poll."3  In  May, 
1640,  a  method  was  introduced  similar  to  that  provided  by 
the  Hartford  Constitution  two  years  before.  The  towns  were 
requested,  when  electing  deputies,  to  give  in  the  names  of 
those  whom  they  wished  to  have  chosen  as  magistrates,  and 
the  deputies  were  required  to  "  set  downe  the  names  of  such 
as  shalbee  nominated  &  the  certaine  number  of  votes  which 
every  man  so  named  shall  have  &  shall  make  a  true  returne 
of  the  same  at  the  next  General  Court."  The  magistrates 

J4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  223;  Session  Laws,  ed.  1715,  30;  ed.  1750, 
ed.  1754,  ed.  1764,  45. 

2  5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  39;   Session  Laws,  1715,  133. 
3 1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  87. 


124 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


and  the  deputies  canvassed  the  votes  and  returned  to  the 
towns  the  names  of  those  who  had  received  the  largest  num- 
ber. Only  persons  so  nominated  could  be  voted  for  at  the 
court  of  election.1 

Four  years  after  this  a  system  very  much  like  the  modern 
State  convention  was  introduced.  Delegates  from  each  of 
the  towns  of  the  colony  met  at  Salem  in  April  and  agreed 
upon  a  certain  number  of  the  "  most  able  and  fit  men," 
whose  names  were  certified  to  the  colonial  secretary  as  the 
persons  to  stand  for  election  as  assistants.2 

In  1649  another  method  was  devised  which,  with  a  few 
modifications,  remained  in  use  until  the  surrender  of  the 
charter,  and  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  used  in  Connecticut 
from  1 689  till  1692.  The  freemen  of  the  various  towns  were 
called  together  by  the  constables  during  the  last  week  of  the 
ninth  month  (November)  in  order  to  give  their  votes  on 
separate  pieces  of  paper  for  the  twenty  persons  whom  they 
wished  to  have  nominated.  But  one  vote  could  be  cast  for 
each  candidate  by  any  one  person.  After  the  voting  was 
over,  the  ballots  were  carried  to  the  shire  town  by  a  person 
selected  by  the  freemen.  On  the  "  last  fourth  day  of  the 
week  in  the  first  month  (March),"  at  twelve  o'clock,  the 
deputies  from  the  several  towns  met  and  appointed  one  of 
their  number  to  carry  the  votes  of  the  entire  shire  to  Boston 
"on  the  second  third  day  of  the  second  month  (April)." 
These  commissioners  from  the  several  shires,  together  with 
the  magistrates,  "  opened  and  perused "  the  ballots.  The 
twenty  persons  having  the  most  votes  were  then  declared 
the  nominees,  and  their  names  were  certified  in  writing  by 
the  commissioners  to  the  several  constables,  and  by  them 
to  the  freemen.3 

1  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  293.      '2  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  21. 
3  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  177;   4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt. 
i,  326. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


125 


The  needless  precaution  of  having  the  nominations  in  the 
towns  take  place  in  November  and  lie  over  till  the  following 
March,  was  done  away  with  in  1652  by  an  order  of  the  court 
which  fixed  as  the  date  of  town  meetings  the  second  week  of 
the  first  month  (March).1  Six  years  later  another  order 
required  that  but  fourteen  persons  should  be  nominated,  on 
account  of "  some  inconveniences  in  the  annual  choice  due 
to  the  large  number  of  twenty.'" 

The  final  form  of  the  nomination  system  was  that  the 
town  meetings  should  be  held  on  the  second  Tuesday  in 
March  due  notice  and  warning  having  been  given  to  the 
freemen.  Each  elector  could  vote  for  twenty  persons  whose 
names  might  be  "  on  one  list  clearly  distinguished,"  and  "  in 
distinct  papers,"  while  no  person  could  be  voted  for  twice, 
except  under  a  penalty  of  ten  pounds  for  each  offense. 
There  were  to  be  two  commissioners  instead  of  one  for  each 
shire,  and  they  were  to  serve  under  oath.  At  the  canvass 
all  lists  containing  more  than  twenty  names,  or  with  the 
name  of  the  same  person  occurring  more  than  once,  were 
to  be  rejected,  and  the  twenty-six  persons  receiving  the 
most  votes  were  to  be  nominees.3 

In  the  elaborate  series  of  fundamental  constitutions  drawn 
up  in  1683  for  East  Jersey,  there  was  a  provision  for  the 
nomination  of  candidates  by  a  method  that  combined  in  a 
singular  manner  the  Greek  notion  of  election  by  means  of 
the  lot  and  the  more  modern  idea  of  election  by  the  free  choice 
of  the  voters.  The  third  clause  of  this  constitution  provided 
that,  "for  the  full  prevention  of  all  indirect  means"  the 
names  of  those  persons  in  each  county  that  were  eligible  to 
the  great  council  should  be  placed  on  pieces  of  parchment, 

1  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  280,  Laws,  chap,  xl,  §  3,  ed.,  1660,  27;   ed., 
1814,  105. 

2  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  i,  347. 
3 1680,  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  292. 


!  2 6  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

prepared  the  day  before  the  election  by  the  sheriff  and  his 
clerk.  On  the  day  appointed,  these  pieces  of  parchment 
were  put  into  a  box  and  a  boy  under  ten  years  of  age  drew 
out  fifty  of  them.  The  fifty  so  drawn  were  then  put  back  in 
the  box  and  twenty-five  of  them  drawn  out.  The  twenty- 
five  tickets  remaining  in  the  box  contained  the  names  of  the 
nominators.  In  case  the  county  in  question  was  entitled  to 
three  members  on  the  council  board,  the  nominators  were, 
by  a  plurality  of  votes,  to  select  twelve  persons  from  the 
twenty-five  whose  names  had  been  drawn,  and  these  were  to 
be  the  candidates  to  be  voted  for  at  the  next  election.  If  the 
county  were  entitled  to  but  two  members,  only  eight  persons 
were  (to  be  selected.  Before  proceeding  to  their  task,  the 
twenty-five  nominators  were  to  solemnly  declare  before  the 
sheriff  that  they  would  not  name  any  one  "  known  to  them 
to  be  guilty  for  the  time,  or  to  have  been  guilty  for  a  year 
before,  of  adultery,  whoredom,  drunkenness,  or  any  such*  im- 
morality, or  who  is  insolvent  or  a  fool."1  The  East  Jersey 
method  of  nomination  was  probably  derived  from  the  "  lot 
and  suffrage"  system  proposed  in  Harrington's  Oceana. 
The  English  philosopher  used  the  lot  to  determine  who 
should  propose  the  competitors,  and  the  suffrage  to  decide 
which  of  them  should  be  elected." 

With  these  exceptions  the  writer  has  found  no  trace  of 
anything  like  a  system  of  regular  nominations.  In  the  laws 
of  those  colonies  where  the  English  method  of  elections  was 
closely  followed,  the  word  candidate  is  frequently  used.  In 
Georgia  the  act  of  1761  speaks  of  a  "person  presented  or 
presenting  himself  as  a  candidate,"  and  from  this  language 
it  might  be  inferred  that  a  method  of  nomination  by  petition 
may  have  been  in  vogue.  The  same  quotation  also  shows' 

1  Fundamental  Constitutions,  iii,  Learning   and  Spicer,*  153;    i   New   Jersey 
Archives,  397. 

2  Oceana,  80,  106,  Harrington's  works,  ed.  Toland,  1771. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


127 


that  a  person  could  nominate  himself.  There  is  no  positive 
authorization  of  a  hustings  platform  on  which  the  candidates 
sat  and  from  which  they  addressed  the  assembled  voters, 
after  having  been  nominated  by  one  elector  and  seconded 
by  another,  as  was  the  custom  in  England.1 

§  6.  Manner  of  Voting.  (Personal  or  by  Proxy.}  The 
five  older  New  England  governments  which  have  been 
classed  in  the  present  work  under  the  general  title  of  the 
Puritan  colonies,  developed  a  method  of  voting  which  they 
called  the  proxy  system.  Unlike  the  method  of  nomination 
and  the  means  employed  in  the  election  of  the  assistants, 
which  were  peculiar  to  one  or  two  of  these  colonies,  the 
proxy  system  was  common  to  them  all,  and  is  found  only  in 
this  group.  Though  it  originated  in  Massachusetts  it  spread 
rapidly  and  was  developed  on  the  same  general  lines  in  the 
other  New  England  jurisdictions.  Still,  as  each  colony  fol- 
lowed its  own  peculiar  methods  in  regard  to  the  details  of 
the  process,  it  will  be  necessary  to  study  the  history  of  all 
five  with  reference  to  this  subject. 

In  the  preceding  pages  it  has  been  mentioned  that  at  first 
all  freemen  were  required  to  attend  in  person  at  the  general 
courts,  whether  they  were  held  for  legislative  purposes  or 
for  the  election  of  magistrates.  It  has  also  been  shown  that 
it  became  necessary  in  the  course  of  time  to  permit  the  free- 
men to  be  represented  by  deputy  on  all  matters  except  the 
annual  election  of  officers,  which  was  regarded  as  a  privilege 
too  precious  to  be  delegated/  As  the  settlements  increased 
'in  number  and  the  colonies  in  extent  of  territory,  it  became 
more  and  more  necessary  to  devise  some  plan,  in  order  to 
save  the  freemen  the  inconvenience  and  trouble  required  by 
a  journey  to  the  capital  town,  and  at  the  same  time  permit 

'See  2  De  Franqueville,  Le  Gouvernment  et  le  Parlement  Brittanique,  417. 
The  modern  method  of  nomination  by  petition  is  described  in  423  el  seq. 
2  See  pp.  4,  5,  10,  14,  15,  ante. 


I  2  8  HIS  TORY  OF  ELEC  TIONS 

them  to  retain  their  right  to  vote  at  the  general  court  of 
election.  It  was  for  these  purposes  that  the  proxy  system 
was  devised,  and  by  this  means  the  identical  ballots  of  the 
freemen  were  still  cast  at  the  general  court.  Because  it  was 
desired  to  preserve  the  character  of  the  general  court  of  elec- 
tions in  Massachusetts  as  the  one  and  only  place  where 
votes  could  be  legally  cast  for  the  officers  of  the  colony,  the 
simpler  method  of  counting  the  votes  cast  in  the  towns,  and 
merely  reporting  the  totals  to  the  general  court,  was  never 
introduced,  although  we  have  seen  that  such  a  plan  was  used 
in  Connecticut  for  the  nomination  of  magistrates.1  Freemen 
were  still  allowed,  and  even  encouraged,  to  cast  their  votes 
in  person,  although,  as  may  be  imagined,  the  increasing 
number  of  voters  caused  such  a  proceeding  to  become  very 
disorderly  and  inconvenient.  The  natural  result,  therefore, 
was  to  abolish  the  practice  of  personal  voting,  and  cause  all 
ballots  to  be  handed  in  at  the  "  proxings,"  which  took  place 
in  the  towns.  Massachusetts  in  1641,  and  again  in  1663, 
made  an  unsuccessful  move  in  this  direction.2  Had  not  her 
charter  been  taken  away,  she  would  doubtless  ultimately 
have  prohibited  freemen  from  voting  at  the  general  court  of 
election  except  by  proxy.  This  result  Connecticut  reached 
in  I75O,3  and  Rhode  Island  not  till  I76o.4 

Although,  as  we  shall  see  in  due  course,  the  absence  of  a 
provision  requiring  a  voter  to  sign  his  name  to  his  proxy  in 
one  or  two  colonies  brought  about  a  secret  ballot,  yet  the 
writer  believes  that  this  result  was  only  incidental.  Secrecy 
was  the  end  especially  desired  and  attained  by  the  corn  and 
beans  ballot  of  Massachusetts  and  the  balls  and  boxes  of 
West  Jersey.  That  the  proxy  system  was  really  a  subter- 

1See  pp.  122,  123,  ante. 

'*  I  Massachtisetts  Colonial  Records,  333;  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt. 
ii,  86. 

3  Session  Laws,  1 750.  4  6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  256. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  i2g 

fuge  and  was  not  strictly  legal  is  shown  by  a  report  of  Lord 
Bellmont  on  the  condition  of  Rhode  Island  in  the  early  part 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  He  complained  of  the  proxy  as 
a  violation  of  the  charter,  which  he  construed  to  mean  an 
election  of  all  freemen  present  in  the  assembly,1  a  point  on 
which  the  colonists  themselves  were  not  free  from  doubt.2 
The  exercise  of  a  public  franchise  by  proxy  was  illegal  at 
common  law. 

In  the  following  pages,  the  history  of  the  proxy  system 
will  be  followed  out  wherever  it  existed,  commencing  with 
Massachusetts,  where  it  was  first  introduced,  and  concluding 
with  Connecticut,  where  it  reached  its  final  development. 

Among  the  records  of  the  general  court  of  the  Boston 
colony,  as  early  as  1635—6,  we  find  an  order  that  certain 
towns  should  have  "  libertie  to  stay  soe  many  of  their  free- 
men att  home  for  the  safety  of  their  towne  as  they  judge 
needful,  &  that  the  said  ffreemen  that  are  appoyncted  by  the 
towne  to  stay  att  home  shall  have  liberty  for  this  court  to 
send  their  voices  by  pxy."3  This  law,  which  affected  only  a 
few  towns,  was  made  general  the  following  year,  when,  on 
account  of  the  "  great  danger  and  damage  that  may  accrue 
to  the  State  by  all  the  freemens  leaveing  their  plantations  to 
come  to  the  place  of  elections,"  it  was  ordered : 

"That  it  shalbe  free  &  lawfull  for  all  freemen  to  send  their  votes 
for  elections  by  proxie  the  next  Generall  court  in  May,  and  so  for 
hereafter,  wch  shall  be  done  in  this  manner :  The  deputies  w** 
shalbee  chosen  shall  cause  the  freemen  of  their  townes  to  be  assem- 
bled &  then  to  take  such  freemens  votes  as  please  to  send  by  pxie 
for  every  magistrate  &  scale  them  vp,  severally  subscribing  the 
magistrates  name  on  the  backside  &  soe  to  bring  them  to  the  court 

1  3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  385  et  seq. 

2  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  29,  39,  62. 

3  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  166. 


I  3  o  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

sealed,  wth  an  open  roule  of  the  names  of  the  freemen  that  so  send 
by  pxie."1 

The  method  thus  prescribed  was  followed  in  general  terms 
by  all  the  Pufitan  colonies,  although,  as  we  shall  see,  further 
elaborations  were  made  in  regard  to  details. 

"  It  being  found  by  experience  that  the  court  of  elections  had 
neede  to  be  brought  into  some  better  order,  the  freemen  growing  to 
so  great  a  multitude  as  will  be  overburdensome  to  the  country  &  the 
day  appointed  for  that  service  will  not  afford  sufficient  time  for  the 
same,  and  the  way  of  p'xies  (as  it  is  called)  is  found  subject  to  many 
miscarriages  and  lorse  of  opportunities  for  advice  in  the  choyse  :" — 
for  these  reasons  a  substitute  for  the  proxy  system  was 
proposed  in  1641.  The  freemen  of  each  town  which  sent  a 
deputy  regularly  to  the  general  court  were  to  hold  a  meet- 
ing upon  the  day  of  election,  and  choose  one  delegate  for 
every  ten  of  their  voters.  Each  of  these  delegates  was 
to  go  to  Boston  with  power  to  vote  on  behalf  of  those 
joining  in  his  election,  and  "  in  this  way  to  bee  at  liberty 
whether  they  will  joyne  altogether  or  vote  severally, 
so  as  every  one  that  hath  ten  votes  shall  be  an  elector, 
and  matrats  and  elders  to  put  in  their  votes  as  other  free- 
men."2 This  plan  did  not  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
towns,  and  the  former  method  was  continued/  Some  years 
later  the  means  to  be  employed  in  collecting  the  proxies  at 
the  towns  received  further  elaboration.  The  freemen  were 
to  deliver  them  in  the  presence  of  the  deputy  and  constable, 
and  these  officers  sealed  them  up  "  in  distinct  papers."  In 
small  villages  that  were  not  represented  at  the  general  court 
the  constable  and  two  or  three  of  the  leading  freemen  were 
empowered  to  collect  the  proxies  and  deliver  them,  sealed 
up,  to  the  deputy  of  the  nearest  town,  whose  duty  it  was  to 

1  March,  1636-7,  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  188.  2  Ibid.,  333. 

3  See  also  2  Winthrop's  New  England,  311. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES,  j^! 

carry  them  to  the  court  of  election.  In  addition,  it  was  pro- 
vided that  only  those  made  free  at  the  court  of  election 
should  deliver  their  votes  "at  the  dores."1 

Another  attempt  was  made  in  1663  to  put  an  end  to  the 
proxy  system.  The  constable  was  ordered  to  call  the  free- 
men together  in  their  town  meetings  as  before,  but  no  one 
could  hand  in  the  proxy  of  another  freeman  unless  the  latter 
were  present  or  sent  his  proxy  "  sealed  up  in  a  note  directed 
to  the  Deputy  or  Townsmen  met  together  for  that  work." 
This  shows  in  effect  that  a  system  of  sub-proxy  existed.  By 
means  of  this  it  was  possible  for  the  elector  to  vote,  although 
he  might  be  absent  from  the  town  meeting,  as  well  as  from 
the  general  court.  According  to  the  law  at  present  under 
consideration,  no  one  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  general 
court  would  be  allowed  to  vote  in  person  at  the  general  court 
of  election.  This  provision,  however,  was  found  unsatisfac- 
tory, and  it  was  repealed  within  a  year  after  its  adoption.2 

Again  in  1679-80  a  law  was  passed  with  a  view  of  saving 
confusion  on  election  day.  The  proxies  were  to  be  collected 
in  the  towns  on  the  second  Tuesday  in  April.  The  ballots 
cast  for  each  officer  were  separate  and  distinct,  except  that 
the  names  of  the  twenty  assistants  were  to  be  put  on  a 
single  sheet  of  paper  "  cut  almost  asunder  betwixt  each 
name."  The  latter  would  seem  to  indicate  a  crude  form  of 
the  modern  perforated  ballot.  All  proxies  were  to  be  taken 
to  Boston  on  the  Monday  before  the  general  election,  and 
at  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day  they  were  opened 

1  2  Massachusetts  Colonial   Records,  220;   Laws,  ed.  1 660,  27;   ed.  1814,   106. 
In  this  as  in  many  other  instances  the  language  of  the  records  differs  from  that  em- 
ployed in  the  statute  books.     It  is  frequently  a  difficult  matter  to  find  the  authority 
among  the  records  for  the  year  in  which  the  foot-notes  of  the  statute  books  de- 
clare that  a  particular  law  was  enacted.     Many  of  the  statements  in  regard  to 
Massachusetts  during  the  course  of  the  present  work  are  the  result  of  a  combina- 
tion of  the  matter  derived  from  the  several  sources  quoted. 

2  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  86,  1 34. 


132 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


and  sorted  in  the  presence  of  all  the  officers  of  the  colony  by 
tellers  who  were  under  oath.  When  the  canvass  had  been 
completed  the  proxies  cast  for  each  person  were  sealed  up 
in  separate  packages,  endorsed  "on  the  backside"  with  the 
name  of  the  candidate  and  the  number  of  proxies  cast  for 
him.  Freemen  who  so  desired  could  still  vote  in  person  at 
the  regular  court  of  election  held  the  following  Wednesday.1 

The  system  prescribed  by  this  law  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  successful,  although  it  would  seem  that  it  made  per- 
sonal attendance  still  possible,  and  at  the  same  time  greatly 
simplified  the  procedure  at  the  court  of  election.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1680,  a  law  was  passed  requiring  that  town  meetings 
should  be  held  on  the  Wednesday  before  election,  and  re- 
viving in  substance  the  system  originally  introduced  by  the 
general  orders  of  1636-7  and  1647."  We  may  accordingly 
conclude  that  in  spite  of  all  its  disadvantages,3  Massachusetts, 
after  trying  a  number  of  plans,  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
rather  than  debar  the  freemen  from  their  privilege  of  voting 
in  person  it  was  better  to  keep  up  the  unwieldy  proxy  system 
and  endure  the  confusion  that  resulted  on  the  election  day. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  proxy  system  in  the  Plymouth 
colony  was  in  1647,  when  it  was  .provided  that  "for  the 
avoiding  of  travel  and  charge,  the  freemen  of  the  towne  of 
Rehoboth"  should  be  permitted  to  send  their  votes  by 
proxy,  provided  these  were  given  in  at  a  town  meeting  and 
immediately  sealed  up.  They  were  to  be  carried  to  the 
court  of  election  by  the  committees  or  by  the  grand  jurymen. 
Still  "  Rehoboth's  Liberty"  was  not  absolute,  for  on  "  weighty 
occasions"  the  personal  attendance  of  the  freemen  might  be 
required  by  special  warrant.4 

1  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  262.  2  Ibid.,  292. 

3  "Fraud  and  Deceit;"  May  1673,  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  ii,  553. 

4  2  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  118;   Brigham,  89. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 


133 


It  was  not,  however,  until  1652  that  the  proxy  system  was 
extended  throughout  the  colony.  It  was  done  at  that  time 
because  "  in  regard  of  age,  disabillitie  of  body,  vrgent  occa- 
sions and  other  inconveniences  that  doe  accrew,  sundrey  of 
the  freemen"  were  hindered  from  putting  in  a  personal  ap- 
pearance. The  method  to  be  followed  was  similar  to  that 
first  introduced  in  Massachusetts,  except  that  the  proxies 
were  collected  at  the  town  meeting  in  which  the  deputies 
were  chosen  rather  than  on  a  special  occasion,  as  was  the 
custom  in  Massachusetts.  The  deputies  were  required  to 
take  a  list  of  those  who  had  not  given  their  proxies,  as  well 
as  of  those  who  had.1  All  the  votes  for  each  officer  (that  .is, 
for  governor,  assistant,  etc.],  were  sealed  up  in  separate 
packages  at  the  town  meetings.  Just  before  Plymouth  was 
annexed  to  Massachusetts  Bay,  associates  or  county  magis- 
trates were  elected  by  the  freemen  of  each  county.  The 
election  took  place  at  the  county  town.  The  proxy  system 
was  used  and  votes  were  collected  at  special  town  meetings 
held  "  seasonably  before,"  and  taken  to  the  county  seat  by 
commissioners  appointed  for  that  purpose.2 

As  no  general  officers  were  elected  under  the  provisional 
government  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  nothing  like  a  proxy  sys- 
tem was  needed.  County  treasurers  were  chosen,  however, 
by  a  course  of  procedure  analogous  to  the  method  em- 
ployed in  the  election  of  Plymouth  associates,  except  that 
personal  attendance  at  the  county  seat  was  not  permitted. 
All  votes  were  cast  in  town  meeting,  sealed  up  by  the  con- 
stables, and  delivered  by  them  to  the  justices  of  the  county 
at  the  next  quarter  sessions,  when  they  were  counted.3  It 
seems  strange  that  even  under  the  royal  government  the 

1 II  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  59;    Brigham,  94,  1 08,  258. 

2  Laws,  1691;   Brigham,  237. 

3  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  27,  §  i;  Ames  and  Goodell,  63. 


134 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


more  simple  method  of  counting  the  votes  in  each  town,  and 
reporting  the  number  cast  for  every  candidate  to  the  court  of 
quarter  sessions,  was  not  adopted. 

Long  before  the  Rhode  Island  charter  was  granted,  the 
principle  of  voting  by  proxy  was  recognized  at  Newport,  as 
is  proved  by  the  law  of  1639-40,  permitting  those  "  neces- 
sarily detained  "  to  send  their  votes,  sealed  up,  to  the  judge 
who  presided  at  an  election.1  When  the  confederacy  was 
organized  in  1647,  it  was  provided  that  "  forasmuch  as  many 
be  necessarily  detained  that  they  cannot  come  to  the  General 
court  of  Elections  that  then  they  shall  send  their  votes  sealed 
up  unto  the  said  Court,  which  shall  be  as  effectual  as  their 
personal  appearances."^  But  a  proviso  was  soon  added  that 
"  None  shall  bringe  them  any  voates  but  such  as  they  re- 
ceive from  the  voaters'  hands,  and  that  all  voates  presented 
shall  be  filed  by  the  recorder  in  the  presence  of  the  Assem- 
bly."3 

When  the  charter  of  15  Charles  II  was  received  there  was 
considerable  doubt  as  to  whether  it  would  be  constitutional 
to  continue  the  proxy  method.  Accordingly,  it  was  resolved, 
pending  a  reference  of  the  question  to  the  authorities  in  Eng- 
land, to  allow  only  those  present  in  person  at  the  general 
court  to  vote.4  But  the  question  was  taken  up  again,  and  it 
was  decided  to  be  "  a  kind  of  necessity  to  admitt  of  voting 
by  proxy  from  such  as  are  not  present  or  cannot  conven- 
iantly  ther  come."5  It  was  therefore  enacted  that  any  free- 
man could  vote  by  proxy,  "  provided  this  order  noe  may 
prejudice  or  discorradge  any  who  desire  to  be  personally 
present."  Proxies  must  be  in  writing  and  delivered,  sealed 
up,  to  a  magistrate  "  in  the  face  of  a  town  meeting"  lawfully 
called,  upon  due  notice  for  that  purpose.  The  names  of  the 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  98. 

2  Ibid.,  149.  *  Ibid.,  217. 

4  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  29.  5  Ibid,  39. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


135 


persons  voting  or  voted  for  (the  language  of  the  statute  does 
not  clearly  state  which)  "  must  be  written  at  length  on  the 
backside  or  the  bottom,"  and  all  votes  must  be  delivered  to 
the  assembly.  A  system  of  sub-proxy  like  that  which  ex- 
isted in  Massachusetts  seems  to  have  been  in  use,  for  in 
case  of  sickness  and  necessary  absence  from  the  town  meet- 
ings an  elector  could  send  his  vote  to  a  magistrate,  and  the 
latter  was  required  to  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  governor 
or  the  deputy  governor  at  the  court  of  election.1 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  meaning  of  the  statute  just 
quoted,  an  act  was  passed  in  1715,  requiring  that  every  free- 
man should  write  his  name  "  at  length  on  the  back  side  of 
his  proxy,"  and  all  proxies  found  wanting  in  this  particular 
were  to  be  thrown  out  when  the  canvass  took  place.2  Some 
years  after  this  a  law  was  passed  providing  that  proxies 
should  be  collected  at  the  regular  town  meetings  for  the  elec- 
tion of  deputies  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  March,  and  that 
no  proxies  could  be  put  in  on  any  other  day.3  The  following 
year  the  date  was  changed  to  the  third  Wednesday  in  April, 
and  it  was  enacted  that  "  no  Person  Proxing  at  said  Meeting 
should  have  Liberty  of  withdrawing  his  Proxy  at  the  General 
Election."* 

The  elector  was  compelled  after  1 747  to  write  the  names 
of  all  the  officers  he  wished  to  vote  for  on  a  single  piece  of 
paper,  and  when  the  ballot  was  cast,  to  sign  it  on  the  back  with 
his  own  name.5  Until  1760  freemen  were  permitted  to  vote 
either  in  person  or  by  proxy  as  they  preferred.  Then  it  was 
at  last  recognized  that  their  presence  at  Newport  was  "  very 
injurious  to  the  interest  and  public  weal  of  the  colony  and 

1  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  64;    1 6  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1730,  1744,  I. 

2  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  195,  208. 
*  16  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  255. 

4 17  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  287.        *  20  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  13. 


136 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


occasions  a  very  great  loss  of  people's  time  at  a  season  of 
the  year  when  their  labor  is  abundantly  necessary  for  pre- 
paring the  ground  and  planting  the  seed  :  on  which  the  pro- 
duce of  the  whole  season  must  depend ;  and  as  all  the  ends 
of  voting  for  general  officers  may  be  as  fully  attained  by  the 
freemen's  putting  in  their  proxie  votes  at  the  town  meeting 
in  their  own  towns,  appointed  by  law  for  that  purpose  agree- 
able to  the  ancient  and  laudable  custom  of  the  prudent  free- 
men." So,  in  future,  all  freemen  must  vote  at  their  town 
meetings,  unless  they  were  members  of  the  assembly,  in 
which  case  they  were  still  permitted  to  cast  their  votes  at 
the  general  court.  The  moderator  was  ordered  to  deliver 
all  the  ballots  to  the  town  clerk,  who  counted  the  number 
given  for  each  candidate  and  sent  a  certificate  of  the  total  to 
Newport.  As  was  the  case  before,  the  names  of  the  officers 
voted  for  were  placed  on  a  single  ticket  signed  on  the  back 
by  the  elector  at  the  time  the  ballot  was  cast.  Before  seal- 
ing them  up  in  a  package  for  transportation  to  Newport,  the 
town  clerk  compared  the  names  on  the  ballots  with  a  list  of 
those  voting  which  he  had  previously  made.  A  person  who 
had  recently  been  admitted  as  a  freeman  in  his  town,  could 
vote  at  the  town  meeting,  and  in  case  the  assembly  admitted 
him  to  the  freedom  of  the  colony,  his  proxy  would  be  re- 
ceived and  counted  good.  If  he  was  rejected  his  proxy 
would  be  thrown  out.1 

Though  it  would  seem  that  the  character  of  the  proxy  as 
a  power  of  attorney  enabling  one  freeman  to  exercise  the 
franchise  of  another,  would  require  that  such  instruments 
should  be  signed,  yet  Rhode  Island  was  the  only  colony 
where  this  was  done.  It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  Rhode 
Island  rule  is  further  evidence  that  the  proxy  system  was 
introduced  for  .another  purpose  than  that  of  providing  a  more 

1 6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  256;   Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

secret  ballot.  In  fact,  votes  cast  by  the  electors  in  person 
at  the  general  court  were  secret,  because  unsigned.1  It 
seems  to  have  been  customary,  in  Rhode  Island  at  any  rate, 
to  preserve  the  proxies  sent  in  from  the  towns,  for  in  1 767  a 
law  was  passed  ordering  that  those  on  hand  should  be 
burned.2 

There  is  no  very  satisfactory  evidence  in  possession  of  the 
writer  as  to  a  proxy  system  in  Hartford  before  the  charter 
of  14  Charles  II.  The  language  employed  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1638  seems  to  assume  that  personal  attendance  was 
necessary.3  About  the  year  1660  we  find  mention  of  "ye 
remote  planta5  :  (yt  vse  to  send  Proxies  at  ye  Election  by 
their  Deputies,"  and  this  seems  to  show  that  proxies  were 
used  to  a  limited  extent/ 

In  New  Haven  the  evidence  that  a  proxy  system  existed 
is  more  conclusive.  The  Fundamental  Orders  of  1643  pro- 
vided for  a  course  of  procedure  similar  to  that  already  de- 
scribed, and  required  that  "  votes  be  sealed  up  in  the  prs- 
ence  of  the  free  burgesses  themselves  -that  their  severall  lib- 
ertyes  may  be  preserved  and  their  votes  directed  according 
to  their  owne  perticular  light."5  Even  before  this  date  there 
is  evidence  of  a  proxy  system.6  The  earliest  edition  of  the 
laws  printed  in  London  in  1656,  provided  in  addition  to  the 
order  just  quoted,  that  if  a  freeman  "  proposing  to  be  present 
at  the  election,  when  the  other  votes  were  sealed  up,  should 
after  be  hindered,  and  then  want  opportunity  to  seal  up  his 
vote  in  the  presence  of  the  major  part  of  the  freemen ;  in 
such  case  he  may  seal  it  up  in  the  presence  of  two  such 
freemen  as  know  he  sent  no  vote  before,  and  (upon  their 

1  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  208;   see  p.  148,  post. 

2  7  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  1 8. 

5 "  Every  p'son  present  and  qualified  shall  bring  in  to  the  persons  deputed  to 
receive  the — ."     i  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  *  Ibid.,  340. 

5  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  114.  6 Ibid.,  ill. 


1 3  8  HIS  TORY  OF  ELE  C  TIONS 

testimony  or  certificate)  it  shall  be  accepted,  that  so  the 
liberty  of  the  freemen  shall  be  preserved  and  they  may  have 
means  to  attend  their  duty  and  their  votes  may  be  directed 
according  to  their  own  particular  light."1 

Under  the  Connecticut  charter  proxies  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  authorized  until  1670,  when  the  court  became 
"  sencible  of  the  great  charge,  difficulty  and  expence  of  time 
the  freemen  of  this  colony  are  at  by  reason  of  their  great 
numbers  and  remoatness  from  Hartford,  the  place  of  elec- 
tion, and  considering  the  many  inconveniences  that  other- 
wayes  may  arise  upon  the  yearly  day  of  election,  and  that 
the  worke  of  that  day  may  be  the  more  orderly,  easily  and 
speedily  issued."  2 

As  in  Plymouth  and  Rhode  Island,  the  proxies  were  col- 
lected in  the  town  meetings,  at  which  the  deputies  were 
chosen.  These  took  place  at  the  meeting  houses  on  the  last 
Tuesday  in  April  (the  election  was  on  the  second  Thursday 
in  May),  commencing  at  nine  o'clock.  The  method  of  pro- 
cedure was  similar  to  that  employed  at  the  general  court  of 
election,  and  the  secrecy  of  the  ballot  was  thereby  preserved. 
The  meetings  were  first  called  to  order,  and  after  the  freeman's 
oath  and  the  penalty  for  disorderly  voting  had  been  read,  the 
names  of  the  persons  nominated  at  the  general  court  of  the 
preceding  October  were  announced.  Each  voter  then 
brought  to  the  constable  the  name  of  his  choice  for  governor 
"  fairly  written  upon  a  piece  of  paper."  These  ballots  were 
sealed  up  in  a  package  which  was  endorsed  with  the  name  of 
the  town  and  the  words :  "  These  are  the  votes  for  the  Gov- 
ernour."  The  votes  for  Deputy  Governor,  Secretary  and 
Treasurer  were  then  collected  in  like  manner  and  sealed  up 
in  packages  appropriately  labeled.  The  assistants  were 
voted  for  in  the  peculiar  manner  which  was  employed  at  the 

1  "i  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  567. 

2  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  131. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


139 


general  court,  and  which  will  be  considered  in  that  connec- 
tion. The  proxies  were  sent  to  Hartford,  accompanied  by 
a  list  of  the  names  of  those  who  had  cast  them.1 

Though  there  were  occasional  changes  in  the  days  ap- 
pointed for  the  town  meetings,?  no  alteration  appears  to  have 
been  made  in  the  method  of  voting  by  proxy  until  after  the 
Revolution.  The  proxies  were  handed  in  on  the  Monday  fol- 
lowing the  first  Tuesday  in  April.  It  would  seem  that  free- 
men were  no  longer  allowed  to  attend  the  court  of  election  in 
person,3  for  no  provision  is  made  in  the  statutory  revision  of 
1750  for  their  presence.  The  ballots  cast  in  the  towns  were 
still  regarded  as  proxies  and  sent  to  Hartford  as  before.  In 
fact,  this  extremely  ridiculous  custom  of  having  the  votes 
cast  at  the  town  meetings  in  April  kept  secret  and  not 
counted  till  the  middle  of  May,  was  continued  until  1819, 
when  it  was  at  last  abolished.4 

Outside  of  New  England  the  writer  has  found  but  a  single 
instance  of  anything  resembling  the  proxy  system.  The 
authority  for  this  statement  is  found  in  a  letter  of  instructions 
from  the  lords  proprietors  to  the  governor  of  South  Caro- 
lina in  September,  1683.  The  passage  bearing  on  the  point 
in  question  is  as  follows : 

"Wee  are  informed  that  there  are  many  undue  practices  in  the 
choyce  of  members  of  Parlmt,  and  that  men  are  admitted  to  bring 
papers  for  others  and  put  in  their  votes  for  them,  wh  is  utterly  ille- 
gal &  contrary  to  the  custome  of  Parliaments  &  will  in  time,  if  suf- 
fered, be  very  mischeevious :  you  are  therefore  to  take  care  that 
such  practices  be  not  suffered  for  the  future,  but  every  man  must 
deliver  his  own  vote  &  noe  man  suffered  to  bring  the  votes  of  another, 

12  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  133;  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  ii; 
Session  Laws,  1715,  30. 

7  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  277,  279. 

3  Election  to  be  by  "  Proxy  of  the  Freemen,"  Session  Laws,  1750,  45. 

4  Public  Acts,  1819,  chap.  2,  312. 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

&  if  the  sheriffs  of  the  counties  shall  presume  to  disobey  herein,  you 
are  to  commissionate  eight  other  sheriffs  in  their  Roomes."1 

Whether  or  not  the  threat  contained  in  the  last  sentence 
of  this  letter  was  sufficient  to  stop  the  practice  complained 
of,  the  writer  cannot  say.  Certain  it  is  that  a  law  passed 
some  years  later  expressly  forbade  any  absentee  from  voting 
by  "  proxy,  letter  or  otherwise."2  As  has  been  elsewhere 
noted/  election  laws  were  passed  in  1692  and  1696,  of  which 
the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  obtain  a  copy.  Beyond  this 
no  evidence  has  been  found  of  anything  like  voting  by  proxy, 
and  the  common  law  doctrine  of  the  illegality  of  the  exercise 
of  a  public  franchise  by  proxy  should,  it  would  seem,  be  an 
effectual  bar  to  anything  of  the  sort  in  the  provinces  more 
directly  under  royal  control.4 

§  7.  Metliod  of  Taking  the  Vote.  A.  NEW  ENGLAND,  i)  Elec- 
tion of  General  Officers.  As  has  already  been  stated,  the 
general  officers  of  the  New  England  governments  were 
chosen  at  the  annual  meeting  of  all  the  freemen  of  the  colony 
assembled  in  general  court  of  election.5  The  introduction 
of  the  proxy  system  did  not  put  an  end  to  this  custom,  for 
all  freemen  were  present  in  theory,  even  though  they  voted 
by  proxy.  As  long  as  freemen  were  permitted  to  attend  the 
general  court  of  election,  the  character  of  the  proceedings 
was  not  changed.  It  may  be  assumed  that  the  governor, 
by  virtue  of  his  office,  presided  over  the  general  court  of 
of  election.  The  court  was  usually  held,  not  in  the  open  air, 
but  in  a  building  of  some  sort,  sometimes  the  meeting  house, 
sometimes  the  residence  of  a  private  person.6 

1  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  406.     See  also  p.  1 60  post. 

2  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  149.  3See  footnotes,  pp.  53,  68,  78,  ante. 
*2i  Car.  I,  Act  xx,  I   Hening,  333  (Virginia),  seems  to  insist  particularly  on 

personal  attendance  at  the  election.  5See  pp.  2  et  seq ;  101  et  seq,  ante. 

6  See  I  Wintbrop's  New  England,  81 ;   3  Rkode  Island  Colonial  Records,  30, 
271;  also  p.  145,  post. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


141 


In  Massachusetts,  the  governor,  as  well  as  the  other  officers, 
were  at  first  chosen  by  "  ereccion  of  hands,"1  which  was  the 
method  employed  in  England,  if  no  poll  was  demanded. 
But  we  have  the  authority  of  Governor  Winthrop  for  the 
statement  that  in  1634  and  thereafter,  "the  governor  and 
deputy  were  elected  by  papers  wherein  their  names  were 
written."2  Some  years  afterwards  it  was  enacted  that  such 
"  papers"  must  be  "  open,  or  once  folded,  not  twisted  or 
rolled  up,  that  they  may  be  the  sooner  perused.'"  Under 
the  proxy  system  ballots  were  cast  in  the  towns  and  sent  in 
a  package  to  the  general  court  of  election,  where  they  were 
counted  together  with  those  cast  by  the  freemen  voting  at 
the  court  in  person.4  A  list  of  the  names  of  those  voting 
accompanied  each  package,  but  whether  or  not  the  names  of 
all  the  freemen  of  the  colony  were  read  before  the  court  and 
each  voter  present  deposited  his  ballot  in  his  turn,  cannot  be 
clearly  made  out  from  the  laws.5  The  ballots  cast  at  the 
court  of  election  do  not  appear  to  have  been  signed,  and 
therefore  possessed  all  the  elements  of  secrecy.  Under  the 
law  of  1679-80,  the  proxies  were  counted  and  sorted  into 
separate  packages  on  the  Monday  preceding  the  Wednes- 
day of  election,  so  that  it  was  a  comparatively  simple  mat- 
ter to  add  the  ballots  cast  by  the  freemen  attending  on  the 
latter  day  to  the  total  number  of  proxies  cast  for  each  can- 
didate, as  previously  ascertained.6  But  this  law  was  in  force 
less  than  a  year.  By  the  order  of  October,  1680,  the  colony 

I  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  37],  59,  95,  104. 

I 1  Winthrop 's  New  England,  65,  81.     It  is  said  that  the  written  ballot  was  firs 
used  in  America  at  the  election  of  the  officers  of  the  Salem  church  in  1629.     See 
2  Campbell,  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England  and  America,  431,  et  seq.,  where  a 
history  of  the  ballot  is  given. 

3  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  220;   Laws,  ed.  1660,  27;    1814,  105. 

4  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  262,  292. 

4  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  188.     6  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  262. 


142 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


returned  to  the  old  practice,  it  being  declared  that  the  gov- 
ernor and  deputy  governor  should  be  elected  and  proclaimed 
before  the  election  of  the  assistants.1  All  ballots  which  were 
brought  in  for  either  nomination  or  election  must  be  depos- 
ited at  the  court  of  election  either  by  the  person  voting  or  by 
the  deputy  or  constable  of  the  town  where  the  voters  whose 
proxies  were  brought  resided. 

No  further  details  are  given  in  regard  to  the  manner  of 
voting  for  the  governor  and  other  general  officers.  The 
election  of  assistants  was,  however,  considered  to  be  of  such 
"  great  concernment '"  that  not  only  was  a  method  of  nomi- 
nation by  ballot  required,  but  the  election  proper  was  con- 
ducted in  a  peculiar  manner.  In  1630  assistants  were  first 
chosen  by  the  freemen.  The  following  year  the  freemen 
were  permitted  to  propose  those  whom  they  desired  chosen, 
and  "if  it  be  doubtfull  whethr  it  be  the  greatr  pte  of  the 
cbmons  or  not,  it  shalbe  putt  to  the  poll."3  When  the  ballot 
was  first  used  in  1634,  a  special  form  of  procedure  was  em- 
ployed in  the  election  of  assistants.  Governor  Winthrop  in- 
forms us  that  they  "were  chosen  by  papers  without  names, 
viz.,  the  Governor  propounded  one  to  the  people  when  they 
all  went  out  and  came  in  at  one  door,  and  every  man  deliv- 
ered a  paper  into  a  hat — such  as  gave  their  vote  for  the 
party  named  gave  in  a  paper  with  some  figure  or  scroll 
in  it,  others  gave  in  a  blank."4  This  was  substantially  the 
form  adopted  for  the  election  of  assistants  in  Connecticut.5 
When  the  method  of  nominations  was  introduced,  it  was  ex- 
pressly stipulated  that  those  of  the  eighteen  nominees  who 
had  been  magistrates  during  the  previous  year,  should  be 

1  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  292. 

2  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  1 77. 

8 1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  79,  87. 
*i  Winthrop's  New  England,  Savage  ed.,[i79O,  81.  5See  page  150, post. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


143 


first  proposed  for  election.1  This  was  an  important  matter 
inasmuch  as  the  voters  balloted  not  upon  all  the  eighteen 
names  at  once,  but  upon  each  of  the  nominees  as  he  was 
separately  put  up. 

In  1643,  assistants  were  no  longer  voted  for  by  means  of 
"papers,"  but  by  "Indian  beanes,  the  white  beanes  to 
manifest  election,  the  black  for  blanks."2  The  language  of 
the  statute  books  required  that  Indian  corn  should  be  used 
to  designate  election,  and  beans  the  contrary,  and  imposed 
a  penalty  of  ten  pounds  upon  freemen  who  put  in  more  than 
one  grain  for  any  officer.3  The  result  of  the  course  of  pro- 
cedure followed  in  Massachusetts,  was  that  each  nominee 
was  either  accepted  or  rejected  by  each  voter,  and  following 
the  analogy  of  the  Connecticut  rule,  it  may  be  presumed 
that  those  receiving  more  affirmative  than  negative  votes 
were  elected.4  It  is  not  perfectly  clear  what  result  the 
introduction  of  the  proxy  had  on  the  corn  and  bean  system. 
The  act  of  1647,  required  the  town  officers  to  seal  up  in  dis- 
tinct packages  the  votes  of  such  freemen  as  remained  at 
home,  and  send  them  to  the  court  of  elections,  "  all  the 
assistants  to  be  chosen  by  Indian  corn  as  aforesaid."5  The 
most  reasonable  interpretation  of  this,  and  one  that  is  borne 
out  by  the  language  of  the  records,6  seems  to  be  that  the 
freemen  were  to  vote  in  their  town  meetings  by  corn  and 
beans,  and  that  the  identical  grains  of  corn  and  beans  so 
used,  were  to  be  sealed  up  and  taken  to  Boston  and  de- 
posited in  the  hat  when  the  name  of  the  person  voted  for 
was  proposed.  This  explanation  is  in  accord  with  the 

1  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  177;   5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  291 ; 
Laws,  ed.,  1660. 

2  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  42,  220. 

*  Laws,  ed.  1660,  27;  ed.  1672,47;   ed.  1814,  105. 

4  Connecticut  Session  Laws,  30. 

5  Laws,  ed.,  1814,  106.  6  2  ^fassachusetts  Colonial  Records,  220. 


144 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


theory  of  the  proxy  system  which  was  instituted  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  enabling  the  identical  ballots  cast  in  the 
towns  to  be  deposited  at  the  general  court  of  election  in 
Boston.  That  the  bean  ballot  was  not  soon  abolished,  is 
shown  by  the  statute  books  of  1660'  and  of  i672.'2 

In  1679—80,  however,  a  law  was  passed  which  seems  to 
have  suspended  this  method  of  voting  for  one  year  at  any 
rate.  According  to  this  order  the  names  of  the  twenty 
assistants  were  to  be  placed  on  one  sheet  of  paper  "  cut 
almost  asunder  betwixt  each  name,"  and  the  rule  seems  to 
have  applied  to  the  votes  cast  at  the  general  court  of-  elec- 
tion, as  well  as  to  the  proxies  handed  in  at  the  towns.  The 
system  of  separately  proposing  each  nominee  was  also  abol- 
ished, for  it  was  specified  that  the  eighteen  receiving  the 
largest  number  of  votes  should  be  assistants  for  the  ensuing 
year."  As  under  this  law  all  the  proxy  ballots  had  been 
counted  and  sorted  on  the  Monday  preceeding  the  Wednesday 
'of  election,  the  ballots  cast  on  the  latter  day  by  the  freemen 
attending  in  person  were  simply  added  to  the  number  of 
proxies  given  for  each  candidate  as  previously  ascertained. 

But  under  the  authority  of  the  statute  passed  in  October, 
1680,  the  former  method  of  procedure  was  revived.  After 
the  other  general  officers  had  been  voted  for  in  the  town 
meetings  by  means  of  the  Indian  corn  ballot,  twenty  assist- 
ants were  chosen  out  of  the  twenty-six  persons  in  nomina- 
tion, and  the  ballots  cast  for  these  were  carried  to  Boston. 
There  the  freemen  who  were  present  in  person  at  the  court 
of  election  voted,  and  the  eighteen  nominees  receiving  the 
largest  number  of  votes  were  declared  elected.  Why  twenty 
names  were  voted  for  in  the  towns  and  only  eighteen  at  the 
general  court  does  not  appear.  Although  the  assistants 
were  still  chosen  by  corn,  there  is  nothing  in  the  statute 

1  Page  27.  *  Page  47. 

8  5  Massachzisetts  Colonial  Records,  262. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

which  would  tend  to  support  the  presumption  that  the  sys- 
tem of  separate  nomination  was  revived.1 

The  general  court  of  election  for  Massachusetts  was  not 
always  held  at  Boston.  In  1637  ^  took  place  at  Newton 
(now  Cambridge),  in  the  open  air.2  In  1644  the  deputies 
voted  that  the  next  election  should  be  held  at  Salem,  but  on 
account  of  the  dissent  of  the  magistrates  this  was  not  done.3 
Because  of  Indian  troubles  in  the  spring  of  1635-6,  some  of 
the  more  distant  towns  were  permitted  to  keep  a  number  of 
their  freemen  at' home  for  purposes  of  defence.  This,  as  we 
have  seen,4  was  the  occasion  when  the  proxy  system  was 
first  introduced.  In  order  to  provide  for  the  sa'fety  of  those 
who  attended  the  election  court  in  person  that  year,  each  of 
the  towns  nearest  to  Boston  was  ordered  to  send  ten  of  their 
freemen  "completely  armed  with  musketts,  swords,  shotts, 
&c."5 

1  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  292;  Supplement  to  Laws  and  Orders  of  1672, 
dated  October  I3th,  1680;  Laws,  ed.  1814  109. 

"  Coffin,  History  ofNewbury  22;   I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  194. 

3  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  5.  *  See  p.  129,  ante. 

5  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  166.  Since  the  foregoing  pages  were  written, 
my  attention  has  been  called  to  a  contemporaneous  description  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts court  of  election  about  the  year  1640.  It  is  found  in  Lechford's  Plaine 
Dealing,  N ewes  from  New- England  (pp.  24,  25,  London,  1642),  and  is  worthy  of 
insertion  in  this  connection : 

"  The  manner  of  elections  is  this :  At  first  the  Chiefe  Governour  and  Magis- 
trates were  chosen  in  London  by  erection  of  hands  of  all  the  Freemen  of  this 
.  Society.  Since  the  transmitting  of  the  Patent  into  New-England,  the  election  is 
not  by  voices,  nor  by  erection  of  hands,  but  by  papers,  thus :  The  generall  court 
Electory,  sitting  where  are  present  in  the  church  or  meeting  house  at  Boston,  the 
old  Governour,  Deputy  and  all  the  Magistrates  and  two  Deputies  or  Burgesses  for 
every  town  or  at  least  one;  all  the  Freemen  are  bidden  to  come  in  an  one  doore 
and  bring  their  votes  in  paper  for  the  new  Governour  and  deliver  them  downe 
upon  the  table  before  the  Court  and  so  to  passe  forth  at  another  doore.  Those 
that  are  absent  send  their  votes  by  proxies.  All  being  delivered  in  the  votes  are 
counted,  and  according  to  the  major  part  the  old  Governour  pronounceth  that 
such  a  one  is  chosen  Governour  for  the  yeare  ensuing.  Then  the  Freemen  in 
like  manner  bring  in  their  votes  for  the  Deputy  Governour  who  being  chosen,  the 


1 46  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

In  Plymouth  the  general  court  of  election  was  held  "  in 
his  Majesties  name  of  England."1  The  election  appears  to 
have  been  by  ballot.  The  votes  of  all  the  freemen  present 
were  first  read,  and  then  the  deputies  presented  the  proxies 
of  their  towns.  The  roll  of  the  freemen  seems  to  have  been 
called,  for  the  deputies  were  bidden  to  take  a  list  of  those 
whose  votes  they  carried  in  order  that  they  might  answer 
for  them  when  they  were  called.2  At  the  county  courts  of 
election  where  associates  were  chosen,  a  similar  course  of 
procedure  was  followed.3 

At  the  meeting  which  organized  the  Rhode  Island  colon- 
ial government  in  1647,  it  was  agreed  that  the  election  of 
officers  should  be  "by  papers,"4  although  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  ballot  was  used  before  that  date.5  The  pro- 
ceedings at  the  general  court  of  election  were  as  follows : 
On  the  day  before,  a  meeting  of  the  general  assembly  was 
held,  and  at  this  the  deputies  presented  their  credentials  and 

Governour  propoundeth  the  Assistants  one  after  the  other.  New  Assistants  are, 
of  late,  put  in  nomination  by  an  order  of  general  Court,  beforehand  to  be  con- 
sidered of.  If  a  Freeman  gives  in  a  blanck  that  rejects  the  man  named;  if  the 
Freeman  makes  any  mark  with  a  pen  upon  the  paper  which  he  brings,  that  elects 
the  man  named;  then  the  blancks  and  marked  papers  are  numbered,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  major  part  of  either,  the  man  in  nomination  stands  elected  or  rejected. 
And  so  for  all  the  Assistants.  And  after  every  new  election,  which  is  by  their 
Patent  to  be  upon  the  last  Wednesday  of  Easter  Terme,  the  new  Governour  and 
Officers  are  all  newly  sworn.  The  Governour  and  Assistants  choose  the  Secre- 
tary. And  all  the  Court,  consisting  of  Governour,  Deputy,  Associates  and  Depu- 
ties of  towns,  give  their  votes  as  well  as  the  rest;  And  the  Ministers  and  Elders 
and  all  Church- officers  have  their  votes  also  in  all  these  elections  of  chief  magis- 
trates. Constables  and  all  other  inferiour  Officers  are  sworn  in  the  generall  quar- 
ter or  other  courts  or  before  any  Assistant."  Also,  3  Massachusetts  Historical 
Collections,  iii,  82;  I  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  504. 

1  Laws,  1636,  II  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  10,  Brigham,  40. 

2  Laws,  1658;  Book  of  General  Laws,  chap.  5,  §  4;  Brigham,  109,  258. 

3  Laws,  1691,  Brigham,  237.  *  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  148. 

a  At  Portsmouth,  in  1638,  votes  are  spoken  of  as  "  unsealed,"  ibid.,  64;  Newport, 
in  1639-40,  ibid.,  98;  I  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  131. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

took  their  "  engagements."  A  moderater  and  a  clerk  were 
chosen,  and  candidates  for  the  freedom  of  the  colony  were 
proposed  and  admitted  by  vote.  This  done,  the  assembly 
adjourned  till  the  following  day,  which  was  that  prescribed 
by  law  for  the  "general  assembly  and  election."1  The  Earl 
of  Bellmont  complained  that  the  preliminary  assembly  was 
illegal,2  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  complied  with  the 
letter  of  the  charter,  which  required  the  newly  elected  as- 
sembly to  convene  on  the  first  Wednesday,  and  not  on  the 
first  Tuesday  in  May.3 

On  Wednesday,  the  deputies  and  magistrates  assembled 
and  the  charter  was.  read.  Then  the  election  proper  com- 
menced. No  regular  course  of  procedure  was  followed,  but 
special  rules  were  adopted  for  each  session.  At  one  time 
the  election  took  place  after  dinner,  and  at  another  it  began 
at  eight  in  the  morning.4  In  one  case  the  assembly  removed 
to  the  lower  room  for  the  convenience  of  the  electors.5  Dur- 
ing the  successive  years  from  1672  to  1678,  for  example,  the 
ballots  were  received  in  various  ways.  In  1672  four  men 
were  chosen  from  each  town  "  to  view  and  observe  the 
votes."  The  next  year  all  votes  brought  in  were  passed 
through  the  hands  of  a  deputy  and  a  magistrate,  while  the 
proxies  were  divided  into  four  parts,  and  "  in  opening  each 
part"  a  magistrate  and  a  deputy  unfolded  the  ballots  and 
"putt  in  the  votes  as  called  for  into  the  hat."  In  1674  cer- 
tain members  were  appointed  to  see  that  there  was  "  an 
orderly  and  due  course,  and  that  no  deceit  or  fraud  be  prac- 
tised." The  following  year  ballots  were  received  by  a 
deputy  and  an  assistant,  and  if  doubts  were  expressed  con- 
cerning any,  the  officers  might  open  them  and  "  soe  deliver 

1  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  516,  529,  541,  565  etc. 

2  3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  385. 

3  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  8.  *  Ibid.,  38,  374. 
5  3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  30. 


148 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


but  one  from  each  person  into  the  hat."  The  proxies  were 
opened  by  four  deputies.  In  1678,  a  sort  of  poll  was  taken, 
and  two  persons  were  chosen  to  write  down  the  names  of 
the  voters.1  When  the  charter  government  was  restored 
after  the  fall  of  Andros,  the  recorder  wrote  down  the  names 
of  those  voting  for  governor,  while  two  tellers  took  the 
ballots  from  the  hands  of  the  electors  and  put  them  in  a  hat. 
Four  other  tellers  then  unfolded  the  ballots  and  put  them  in 
a  second  hat.2  The  moderator  who  presided  at  the  election 
was  frequently  the  governor.  When  the  votes  had  been 
added  up  the  persons  chosen  were  proclaimed  and  sworn 
into  office.  If,  as  not  infrequently  happened,  a  person 
refused  to  serve,  the  assembly  filled  his  place  before  pro- 
ceeding to  its  regular  business  of  legislation. 

Previous  to  1715  ballots  cast  at  the  general  election  were 
unsigned.  In  that  year  a  law  was  passed  requiring  all 
electors  to  sign  their  ballots  as  they  had  previously  signed 
their  proxies.  This  measure  is  said  to  have  been  adopted 
because  "  great  abuse  and  clandestine  proceedings  and  irreg- 
ular practice,  as  they  are  creditably  informed,  hath  been 
acted  by  sundry  loose  and  fractious  freemen  of  said  colony 
by  putting  or  delivering  into  the  hat  sometimes  two,  three 
or  more  votes  for  one  officer."  But  in  a  very  short  time  the 
practice  of  signing  ballots  was  found  to  cause  "  great  dissatis- 
faction and  uneasiness  to  good  people,  who  deem  it  a  very 
great  hardship  by  exposure  to  the  creating  of  animosity  and 
heartburning  of  their  particular  friends."  Accordingly  the 
obnoxious  law  was  repealed,  and  a  series  of  severe  penalties 
was  prescribed,  with  a  view  of  putting  an  end  to  fraudulent 
practices.3  With  the  exception  of  this  short  period,  the  bal- 
lot in  Rhode  Island  retained  its  secret  character,  though  the 

1 2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  450, 483,  5 1 7,  565 ;  3  idem,  4. 

2  3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  271. 

3  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  195,  207. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

law  requiring  proxies  to  be  signed  made  freemen  voting  in 
that  manner  do  so  at  the  price  of  secrecy.  When  the  statute 
abolishing  the  practice  of  personal  voting  at  the  general 
court  was  enacted  in  1760,'  the  effect  of  the  custom  requir- 
ing proxies  to  be  signed  was  to  abolish  the  secret  ballot 
altogether,  so  far  as  Rhode  Island  elections  were  concerned. 
The  writer  has  not  been  able  to  ascertain  precisely  what 
was  the  course  followed  by  the  freemen  of  the  New  Haven 
colony  in  casting  their  votes.  The  existence  of  the  proxy 
system  seems  to  be  circumstantial  evidence  tending  to  estab- 
lish the  belief  that  the  ballot  was  used.  In  the  London  edi- 
tion of  the  laws  of  this  plantation  (1656)  the  following  pro- 
vision is,  however,  to  be  found : 

"  That  each  Freeman,  whether  present  or  absent  at  the  Election, 
may  the  better  improve  his  Liberty,  It  is  Ordered  that  he  may  give 
or  send  his  Vote  as  he  finds  cause,  either  in  the  affirmative,  by  put- 
ting in  an  Indian  Corn,  or  in  the  Negative,  by  putting  in  a  Beane,  or 
in  such  other  manner  as  the  Generall  Court  shall  iudge  convenient."* 

The  passage  just  quoted  refers  to  elections  for  the  "  Mag- 
istracy," which  term  the  present  writer  is  inclined  to  believe 
was  meant  to  include  the  governor,  as  well  as  the  magistrates 
proper.  Now,  as  already  stated,3  the  records  of  the  New 
Haven  jurisdiction  previous  to  1653  are  lost,  and  the  above 
statute  is  not  found  in  the  existing  records  so  far  as  pub- 
lished. It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  the 
London  edition  of  the  laws  is  supposed  to  have  been  com- 
piled in  1648,  although  revised  by  Governor  Eaton  in  1655 
after  he  had  examined  an  edition  of  the  Massachusetts  laws.4 
This  fact,  as  well  as  the  silence  of  the  existing  New  Haven 
records,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  introduced  the  pass- 

1 6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  256. 

*  2  Ne^v  Haven  Colonial  Records,  567,  568. 

3  See  p.  121,  ante.  *  2  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  iv,  154,  186. 


ISO 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


age  under  discussion,  after  reading  the  Massachusetts  law  of 
1643  >  and  fearing  lest  his  action  might  not  be  approved,  he 
inserted  the  clause  giving  the  general  court  power  to  pre- 
scribe the  method  to  be  followed  in  elections.  This  suppo- 
sition, as  well  as  the  language  employed  in  the  New  Haven 
statute,  confirms  the  belief  already  expressed,1  that  in  Massa- 
chusetts, as  well  as  in  New  Haven,  the  identical  corn  and 
beans  cast  in  the  town  "proxings"  were  sent  to  the  general 
court  of  election. 

The  Hartford  Constitution  of  1638  expressly  provided 
that  the  written  ballot  should  be  used  in  the  election  of  offi- 
cers. Each  elector  brought  to  the  teller  a  single  piece  of 
paper  with  the  name  of  his  choice  for  governor  written  on  it, 
and  the  candidate  receiving  the  greatest  number  of  such 
votes  was  declared  elected.2  With  the  exception  of  the  as- 
sistants, the  other  general  officers  were  elected  by  ballot, 
and  no  change  appears  to  have  been  made  in  the  practice. 

For  the  election  of  magistrates  or  assistants  a  peculiar 
method  was  followed  both  in  the  general  court  and  in  the 
town  "  proxings."  As  has  been  above  explained,  all  candi- 
dates for  the  office  were  nominated  in  advance.3  When  the 
governor  and  deputy  governor  could  be  chosen  only  from 
those  in  nomination,  each  freeman  could  vote  for  any  name 
on  the  list.  As  soon  as  these  two  officers  had  been  chosen, 
the  secretary  read  the  names  of  those  in  nomination,  and 
then  "  severally  nominated  them  distinctly."  As  each  name 
was  put  up,  the  freemen  handed  to  the  teller  pieces  of  paper. 
Those  papers  upon  which  something  had  been  written  (not 
necessarily  the  name  of  the  candidate)  were  votes  in  favor  of 
the  nominee ;  the  blanks  were  votes  against  him.  All  per- 
sons having  more  written  papers  than  blanks  were  elected, 
but  in  case  less  than  six  were  chosen,  then  a  sufficient  num- 

1  See  p.  143,  ante.     2  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.      3  See  p.  121,  ante. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  i  5  i 

ber  of  those  having  the  most  written  papers  were  taken  to 
fill  up  the  quota  of  six.1  This  was  the  method  laid  down  by 
the  constitution  of  1638  and  it  was  doubtless  modelled  after 
the  Massachusetts  law  of  i635.2 

Under  the  charter  of  14  Charles  II,  the  same  plan  was  fol- 
lowed with  some  elaborations.  The  general  court  seems  to 
have  arranged  the  list  of  persons  in  nomination,  and  this 
came  to  be  of  importance,  for  it  was  required  that  the  names 
should  be  proposed  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  placed 
on  the  list,  and  as  soon  as  the  number  of  assistants  allowed 
by  the  charter  had  been  chosen  the  election  was  to  cease."' 
In  the  town  "  proxings,"  however,  the  names  of  all  the  nom- 
inees were  proposed  in  turn,  so  that  a  freeman  could  always 
vote  for  any  one  he  pleased,  so  long  as  his  name  was  on  the 
list/ 

The  rule  prevailing  in  the  town  "  proxings"  seems  to  have 
been  extended  to  the  general  court  in  1692,  when  it  was 
ordered  that  the  proceedings  should  be  as  formerly,  "  onely 
all  those  that  stand  for  nomination  shall  pass  through  the 
election;"5  and  that  those  having  the  most  votes  should  be 
elected.6  After  1750,  when  freemen  could  no  longer  attend 
the  general  court,  it  was  provided  that  no  elector  could  vote 
for  more  than  twelve  assistants.7  Before  this  he  could  vote 
on  the  whole  list,  and  if  he  were  opposed  to  any  particular 
candidate  he  could  signify  his  dislike  by  putting  a  blank  bal- 
lot into  the  hat.  Under  the  new  system,  however,  he  could 
still  vote  against  the  nominee,  but  at  the  price  of  forfeiting 
a  vote  in  favor  of  some  one  else,  for  all  his  ballots  both  affirm- 
ative and  negative  must  not  exceed  twelve  in  number. 
The  effect  of  this  method  of  choosing  assistants  appears  to 

1  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21.  *  See  p.  142,  ante. 

3  2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  133. 

4  4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  1 1 ;  "a  white  piece'of  paper  "  to  be  a  blank  vote. 

5  Ibid.,  8l.  6  Session  Laws,  ed.  1715,  30.  7  Ibid.,  ed.  1750,  45. 


152 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


have  been  to  make  few  changes  among  the  incumbents  of 
these  offices.  The  names  of  those  already  in  office. were 
generally  placed  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  the  nominees,  and 
for  that  reason  they  were  nearly  always  elected.  A  contem- 
porary writer1  says  that  many  electors  usually  retired  be- 
fore the  close  of  the  voting,  but  that  the  expectation  of 
reelection  was  not  strong  enough  to  remove  all  fear  of  popu- 
lar restraint  from  the  court  of  assistants.  Accordingly,  the 
power  of  the  legislature  to  arrange  the  order  of  the  names  of 
the  eight  nominees  not  in  office,  had  a  considerable  influence 
which  could  be  exerted  in  the  direction  of  maintaining  the 
court  of  assistants  on  a  footing  representing  the  conserva- 
tism of  twenty  years  back,  as  was  indeed  actually  the  case. 

The  two  houses  of  the  legislature  had  separated  in  1698, 
and  the  lower  house  always  contended  that  when  a  vacancy 
occurred  in  the  office  of  Governor,  the  two  houses  should  sit 
in  convention  in  order  to  exercise  their  power  as  conferred 
by  charter,  of  choosing  a  person  to  serve  during  the  unexpired 
term.  But  the  houses  appear  to  have  sat  separately  on  such 
occasions,  and  while  in  1707,  their  votes  were  combined.'2 
in  1724  the  candidate  having  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  each 
house  was  declared  elected.3  In  order  to  be  elected  during 
the  later  years  of  the  colonial  government,  a  candidate  was 
required  to  receive  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast.  If  this 
did  not  happen,  the  assembly  elected  the  officer.4 

The  commentator  who  has  already  been  quoted,  gives  an 
account  of  the  proceedings  at  Hartford  on  election  day, 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
freemen  took  no  part  in  the  proceedings  except  to  look  on 
and  listen.  The  representatives  met  in  their  chamber  at 

1  I  Swift,  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,  84. 

*  5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  38.  . 

3  Ibid,,  484.    See  also  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  416. 

*  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  453. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  JEJ3 

•eight  o'clock  and  elected  their  speaker  and  clerk.  Creden- 
tials were  then  presented,  and  the  members  sworn.  A  mes- 
sage was  sent  to  the  outgoing  governor  and  council,  who  had 
meanwhile  met  in  the  council  chamber.  Both  houses  then 
marched  in  procession  to  the  meeting-house,  where  the  elec- 
tion sermon  was  preached.  This  done,  the  houses  retired  to 
their  apartments  and  appointed  committees  to  count  the 
votes  that  had  been  cast  in  the  towns  more  than  a  month 
before.  When  the  canvass  was  completed,  the  persons 
elected  were  publicly  proclaimed  and  sworn  into  office.1 

Coming  as  it  generally  did  in  the  spring  time  after  the 
rigors  of  winter  had  departed,  we  may  believe  that  the  day 
of  the  general  court  of  election  was  the  New  England 
holiday.  In  two  of  the  colonies  a  typical  feature  of  the 
celebration  was  the  preaching  of  an  election  sermon.  Gov- 
ernor Winthrop  tells  us  in  his  Journal  that  the  position  of 
preacher  was  regarded  as  one  of  very  great  honor,  and  that 
the  freemen  strictly  insisted  on  the  privilege  of  selecting  the 
clergyman  who  was  to  deliver  the  discourse,  and  claimed  it 
as  a  part  of  their  liberty.  The  magistrates  do  not  seem  to 
have  dared  to  openly  contest  the  question  with  the  freemen 
or  with  their  deputies.'2 

In  the  colonial  records  of  Connecticut,  we  find  continual 
references  to  the  subject  of  election  'sermons,  and  they  were 
preached  down  to  the  very  close  of  the  colonial  period.3 
This  custom  was  found  to  be  so  effectual  for  the  promotion 
of  honesty  in  elections,  that  in  1708  the  general  court  re- 
solved to  send  a  letter  to  all  ministers  of  the  gospel  resident 
in  the  colony,  asking  them  to  preach  on  election  day  before 

1  I  Swift,  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,  70. 

2  I  Winthrop's  New  England,  31,  218. 

3  1775,  15  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  271.     An  extract  from  one  of  them  is 
given  in  3.  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  179. 


154 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


the  freemen  of  each  plantation,  a  sermon  "  proper  for  direc- 
tion in  the  choice  of  civil  rulers."1 

Feasting  also  seems  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  pro- 
gramme, and,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  in  a  colony  so  strictly 
governed  "  according  to  the  word  of  God,"  as  was  New 
Haven,  we  find  the  following  entry  in  the  records  under  date 
of  1653  :  "  Ordered  that  a  dinner  should  be  provided  at  ye 
ordinary  for  the  court  and  whom  they  shall  invite,  vpon  the 
election  day,  at  the  publique  charge  of  the  jurisdiction,  but 
after  euery  towne  is  to  pvide  for  theire  owne  magistrates  and 
deputies." 2 

2)  Election  of  Deputies.  The  course  of  procedure  to  be 
followed  at  the  town  courts  where  deputies  were  chosen  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of  great  import- 
ance, because  very  little  general  legislation  bearing  on  the 
subject  is  to  be  found.  For  instance,  it  is  not  entirely 
clear  whether,  in  case  a  town  was  entitled  to  more  than  one 
representative,  each  elector  placed  the  names  of  all  the  per- 
sons he  voted  for  on  a  single  ticket,  or  on  several.  We 
shall  see  that  the  written  ballot  was  generally  used  in  New 
England  even  under  the  royal  governments.  Thus  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, after  1635,  deputies  were  elected  "by  papers  as 
the  Gou'nr  is  chosen," 3  while  the  laws  of  Plymouth  and  New 
Hampshire  contain  no  provisions  on  this  subject.  The  writ- 
ten ballot  was  so  firmly  established  in  Massachusetts  that  it 
continued  to  be  used  under  the  charter  of  1691,  by  virtue  of 
a  statute  which  required  electors  to  hand  in  their  votes  un- 
folded.4 

In  Rhode  Island  it  was  enacted  that  the  free  inhabitants 
of  the  towns  should  elect  committees  of  six  to  represent 

1  5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  61.      2  2  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  52. 

3  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  157;  Laws,  ed.  1660,  25;  ed.,i8i4,  97. 

4  Laws  1693-4,  chap   14,  §  7,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  147. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


155 


them  at  the  general  court,  and  that  if  the  number  were  in- 
complete, the  men  of  the  town,  if  freemen  of  the  colony, 
should  fill  vacancies  by  an  election  to  be  held  at  the  town 
where  the  court  sat.1  But  this  custom  seems  to  have  fallen 
into  disuse,  for  we  find  that  the  Earl  of  Bellmont  complained 
that  deputies  were  chosen  by  the  town  council  rather  than 
by  the  inhabitants.2 

By  the  Hartford  Constitution  of  1638,  it  was  provided 
that  the  election  of  deputies  should  be  by  ballot,  and  voters 
were  required  to  "bring  in  written  on  severall  papers"  the 
names  of  those  they  desired  chosen.  The  three  or  four 
having  the  greatest  number  of  papers  were  to  be  deputies  to 
the  next  general  court.3  In  this  case  it  seems  plain  that 
each  freeman  cast  as  many  ballots  as  there  were  deputies  to 
be  chosen.  After  the  grant  of  the  charter  no  particular 
mode  of  election  seems  to  have  been  prescribed.4  Swift  in 
1790,  wrote  that  deputies  were  elected  by  ballot,5  while  a 
recent  writer  states  that  it  became  customary  after  the  con- 
solidation with  New  Haven,  to  elect  them  by  acclamation.6 

B.  THE  ROYAL  PROVINCES.  For  want  of  a  better  name  we 
have  grouped  under  the  title  of  the  royal  provinces  all  those 
colonies  which  followed  in  substance  the  course  of  procedure 
customary  in  choosing  the  members  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  England.  The  title  is  somewhat  misleading,  for 
Maryland  will  be  included  in  this  group,  although  for  the 
greater  part  of  her  history  she  was  under  proprietary  rule ; 

1  i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  236. 
1  3  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  385,  et  seq. 
3  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21. 
*  See  Session  Laws,  30;  "first  they  shall  choose,"  etc. 
6  I  System  of  Ike  Laws  of  Connecticut,  66. 

'Judge  Baldwin,  Early  History  of  the  Ballot  in  Connecticut;  4  American  His- 
torical Association,  pt.  iv,  90,  Series  of  1890. 


iS6 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


while  the  Carolinas  and  Massachusetts  Bay  are  excluded 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  during  the  eighteenth  century 
they  were  governed  directly  by  the  British  crown.  In  New- 
York,  New  Jersey  (after  1701),  Maryland,  Virginia  and 
Georgia,  the  English  method  was  introduced,  generally,  it  is 
believed,  on  account  of  the  influence  of  the  home  government. 

In  the  royal  provinces  the  ballot  was  unknown ;  in  fact,  it 
was  not  used  in  England  until  after  1872.  Under  this  sys- 
tem secrecy  does  not  appear  to  have  been  sought,  and  it 
certainly  was  not  attained.  For  this  reason  the  written 
ballot  of  New  England  was  a  far  superior  method  and 
one  better  calculated  to  preserve  the  purity  of  elections. 
Although  the  records  of  the  Puritan  colonies  show  that  fraud 
was  sometimes  practiced,  it  is  difficult  to  understand,  from 
a  modern  point  of  view,  how  a  system  more  open  to  abuse 
than  the  English  could  be  devised.  In  order  to  fully  under- 
stand the  manner  in  which  elections  were  carried  on  in  the 
group  of  colonies  we  are  about  to  consider,  it  will  perhaps 
be  advisable  to  review  briefly  the  development  in  England 
from  the  first  parliamentry  election  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
the  First,  down  to  the  declaration  of  American  Independence 
in  1776. 

The  procedure  at  the  parliamentary  elections  of  the  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth  centuries  is  involved  in  obscurity.  "  It 
would  be  a  waste  of  ingenuity"  says  Bishop  Stubbs,  "to 
speculate  on  the  different  courses  that  a  sheriff  unguided  by 
custom,  may  have  adopted."1  The  statute  of  7  Henry  IV' 
provided  that  the  election  should  take  place  at  the  next 
county  court,  to  be  holden  after  the  delivery  of  the  writ. 
After  proclamation,  all  persons,  as  well  as  "  suitors  duly 
summoned  for  the  same  cause  as  other,"  proceeded  "  freely 
and  indifferently"  to  the  election.  This  power  of  citing 

1  3  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  417.  2  Chap.  15. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


157 


voters  was  open  to  great  abuse,  and  made  it  possible  for  the 
sheriff  to  do  about  as  he  pleased.1 

The  will  of  the  electors  was  expressed  by  show  of  hands, 
or  by  a  viva  voce  vote.  The  sheriff  decided  who  had  been 
elected  "by  taking  a  view,"  and  the  legality  of  such  a  pro- 
ceeding was  affirmed  in  1554  by  the  courts  of  law.  In  a 
contested  case  decided  that  year  the  plaintiff  contended  that 
because  no  poll  had  been  taken,  the  sheriff  could  not  deter- 
mine the  exact  number  of  electors  in  favor  of  any  particular 
candidate.  But  the  judges  decided  that  this  was  not  neces- 
sary.2 

In  the  twenty-first  year  of  the  reign  of  James  I,  the  House 
of  Commons  established  the  right  to  a  poll  by  ordering  a 
new  election,  and  declaring  the  previous  one  void,  although 
three  successive  views  had  been  taken.'*  A  debate  held  in 
the  House  in  1625,  shows  that  the  method  of  taking  the  poll 
was  very  crude.  At  the  trial  of  a  disputed  election  it  was 
shown  that  the  sheriff  closed  the  front  entrance  to  the  place 
of  election  and  stood  at  the  postern  gate  in  order  to  count 
the  electors  as  they  passed  out.  While  he  was  thus  engaged 
the  front  gate  was  forced  open.  He  thereupon  stopped  tak- 
ing the  poll,  acting  on  the  theory  that  only  those  present  at 
the  view  should  be  counted.  The  House  of  Commons, 
however,  decided  that  a  new  election  must  be  held.*  This 
decision  upholds  the  position  that  the  poll  was  continued  for 
some  days,  so  that  all  who  desired  might  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  voting,  even  though  they  had  been  absent  from  the 
view. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  court  of 

1  3  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  419. 

2  Plowden,  Commentaries,  129.  * 

3  I  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  729. 

*  Ibid.,  80 1,  804;   Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  123. 


IS8 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


hustings  for  the  election  of  members  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  held  in  the  open  air  or  in  a  public  building. 
After  proclaiming  silence,  the  returning  officer  read  aloud 
his  writ  and  announced  the  penalty  imposed  by  law  upon 
illegal  voting.1  After  being  proposed  in  his  turn  by  an 
elector,  each  candidate  addressed  the  assembled  voters  from 
a  raised  platform.  Then,  if  the  number  of  candidates  did 
not  exceed  the  number  of  members  to  be  returned,  the  elec- 
tion was  made  by  acclamation.  If  not,  a  show  of  hands  was 
called  for,  in  order  to  assist  the  sheriff  in  determining  "the 
choice  by  the  view."  Any  one  who  chose  to  be  present 
could  participate  in  the  election  and  raise  his  hand  or  his 
voice.  It  may,  therefore,  be  imagined  that  the  proceeding 
was  far  from  orderly. 

Any  candidate  had  the  right  to  contest  the  decision  of  the 
sheriff  by  demanding  a  poll,  which  was  taken  by  that  officer 
or  by  his  deputy,  assisted  by  a  suitable  number  of  clerks. 
Only  those  qualified  according  to  law  could  be  entered  in 
the  poll  list,  which  contained  the  name  of  each  freeholder, 
the  place  of  his  freehold  and  the  name  of  the  person  for 
whom  he  voted.2  A  statute  passed  in  1711,  required  the 
place  of  abode  to  be  set  down  and  the  word  jurat  in  case 
the  freeholder  was  sworn.  In  Yorkshire  and  Cheshire  the 
sheriff  was  compelled  to  provide  seven  "  convenient  tables 
or  places"  to  be  "made  at  the  costs  and  charges  of  the 
candidates,  and  to  be  placed  within  the  shire  hall3  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner :  Two  each  side,  two  at  the  upper  and  one  at 
the  lower  end."  This  provision  was  probably  intended  for 

1  See  Statute  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  24,  §  9;  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15,  §  7. 

2  Statute  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  §  3.     This  statute  was  enacted  in  some 
form    in   Virginia,  New  York,   New   Jersey   and  Georgia.     2  De  Franqueville, 
Le  Gouvernment  et  le  Parliament  Britannique,  417. 

3  This  applied  only  to  Chester. 


IN  THE  AMES  1C  AN  COLONIES.  j  59 

the  convenience  of  the  voters,  and  for  the  same  reason  it  was 
customary  to  continue  a  poll  for  several  days.3 

By  1745  the  number  of  electors  in  each  county  seems  to 
have  grown  so  large  that  a  more  elaborate  method  of  taking 
the  poll  was  necessary.  Within  three  days  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  poll,  the  sheriff  was  required  to  erect  at 
the  expense  of  the  candidates  as  many  booths  as  he  thought 
proper.  These  booths  were  not  to  exceed  fifteen  in  number, 
and  were  conspicuously  labeled  with  the  name  of  the  rape, 
wapentake,  tathe,  ward  or  hundred  for  which  the  use  of 
which  the  booth  was  designed.  At  each  booth  were  placed 
a  clerk  with  a  poll  book,  and  also  an  inspector  for  each  can- 
didate. The  inspectors  were  provided  with  cheque  books  in 
which  to  enter  the  names  of  the  freeholders  voting.  Each 
clerk  was  given  a  list  of  all  the  towns,  villages,  parishes  and 
hamlets  situated  in  the  division  whose  name  was  on  his 
booth.  Copies  of  these  lists  were  furnished  to  the  candidates 
or  their  agents  at  the  price  of  two  shillings  apiece,  and  only 
inhabitants  of  the  places  mentioned  in  the  lists  could  vote 
at  any  particular  booth,  unless  the  estate  of  the  voter  lay  in 
some  district  not  entered  on  any  of  the  lists.  The  compen- 
sation of  the  clerks  was  fixed  at  not  less  than  a  guinea  a 
day  and  this  was  paid  by  the  candidates.-  Except  perhaps 
in  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  the  system  of  booths  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  introduced  into  this  country,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  representatives  of  the  colonial  candi- 
dates were  expressly  authorized  to  use  cheque  books. 

In  regard  to  adjourning  or  closing  the  poll,  the  English 
law  was  as  follows :  No  adjournment  to  another  town  could 
be  had  without  the  consent  of  the  candidates,  nor  was  any 
unnecessary  delay  permitted.  Unless  the  candidates  con- 
sented, the  returning  officer  must  proceed  from  day  to  day, 

1  Statute  10  Anne,  chap.  23. 

a  Statutes  18  Geo.  II,  chap.  18,  §§  7,  8,  9;  19  Geo.  II,  chap.  28,  §  6. 


1 60  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

and  from  time  to  time,  until  all  the  freeholders  present  were 
polled.  Elections  were  held  at  the  next  regular  county 
court  after  the  receipt  of  the  writ,  unless  the  court  met  with- 
in six  days  thereafter.  If  so,  the  sheriff  gave  ten  days 
notice  and  adjourned  to  some  convenient  day,  which  could 
not  be  a  Monday,  a  Friday,  or  a  Saturday.  But  county 
courts  of  election  beginning  on  a  day  other  than  those  men- 
tioned, could  be  adjourned  to  these  days,  and  from  day  to 
day  until  the  election  was  completed.1 

On  the  western  side  of  the  Atlantic  we  find  that  it  was 
customary  in  early  times  for  the  sheriffs  of  Virginia  to  go 
from  one  plantation  to  another  and  collect  the  votes  of  the 
inhabitants.2  A  law  passed  by  the  House  of  Burgesses  in 
1639  ordered  the  sheriffs  "not  to  compel  any  man  to  go  off 
the  plantation  where  he  lives  to  choose  burgesses."  3  That 
it  was  customary  for  the  electors  to  exercise  their  franchise, 
either  by  signing  a  paper  which  the  sheriff  carried  about,  or 
else  by  sending  their  votes  by  proxy,  is  shown  by  a  statute 
of  1646  to  the  following  effect: 

"  Whereas  divers  inconveniences  are  likely  to  ensue  by  disorderly 
and  illegal  election  of  Burgesses  by  subscribing  of  hands  contrary  to 
the  warrant  directed  for  the  sayd  election,  by  which  means  it  also 
happeneth  that  few  nor  none  doe  appeare  personally  according  to 
summons,  Be  it  therefore  inacted  that  noe  election  shall  be  made  of 
any  Burgesse  or  Burgesses  but  by  a  plurality  of  voices,  and  that  noe 
handwriting  shall  be  admitted."4 

In  the  future  personal  attendance  of  all  voters  was  required 
under  penalty. 

Less  than  ten  years  after  the  act  just  quoted  we  find  that 
the  sheriff  was  required  to  determine  the  election  by  taking 
the  view,5  but  two  statutes  passed  a  little  later  seem  to  hint 

1  Statutes  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25 ;  6  Geo.  II,  chap.  23.     2 1  Hening,  xix,  xx. 
3  14  Car.  I,  Act  xix;  I  Hening,  227.  4  21  Car.  I,  Act  xx;  i  Hening,  333. 

5  5-6  Commonwealth,  Act  vii;  I  Hening,  411. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  jgj 

at  something  resembling  the  former  custom  by  using  the 
words :  "  Provided  always  that  they  fairly  give  their  votes 
by  subscription,  and  not  in  a  tumultuous  way."  ' 

Whether  or  not  there  may  have  been  a  tendency  towards  a 
written  form  of  ballot,  the  question  was  effectively  put  to  rest 
in  Virginia  by  the  statute  of  1 1  William  III,  chap.  2,  which, 
like  the  law  enacted  in  New  York  during  the  course  cf  the 
same  year,  was  modelled  on  the  English  statute  of  7  and  8 
William  III,  chap.  25,  from  which  we  have  already  quoted.2 
In  case  the  election  of  any  burgess  could  not  be  "determined 
upon  the  view  by  the  consent  of  the  freeholders  then  present, 
but  that  a  poll  shall  be  required  for  determination  thereof," 
the  sheriff  was  empowered  to  take  one  with  the  assistance  of 
clerks  to  be  appointed  for  that  purpose.  The  name  of  each 
freeholder  and  that  of  the  person  for  whom  he  voted  were 
entered  in  writing.3  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  language  of 
this  statute*  gives  any  candidate  or  freeholder  power  to  de- 
mand a  poll. 

Later  enactments  elaborated  in  several  particulars  the 
method  of  taking  the  poll.  Books  were  to  be  provided  for 
the  purpose,  and  first  of  all  the  name  of  each  candidate  was 
written  on  a  separate  page  or  in  a  particular  column.  Then, 
as  each  freeholder  voted,  his  name  was  fairly  written  in  the 
proper  pages  or  columns  under  the  names  of  the  persons 
for  whom  he  voted.  No  freeholder  who  had  once  voted  for 
two  persons,  could  afterward  poll  for  any  more.  The  poll 
could  not  be  concluded  until  all  present  had  voted,  or  until 
after  proclamation  had  been  made  three  times  from  the  court 
house  door,  and  no  more  freeholders  appeared.5 

Toward  the  close  of  the  colonial   period    we    find    that 

1  6  Commonwealth,  Act  xvi;  I  Hening,  403;  9  Commonwealth,  Act  xciii;  ibid, 
473.  2  See  p.  158,  ante. 

3  3  Hening,  172.  4  Also  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  10;  7  Hening,  519. 

s  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  4;  3  Hening,  236. 


!  62  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

every  person  having  the  right  to  vote  for  two  burgesses  must 
name  them  both  when  he  first  presented  himself  to  be  polled, 
or  else  forfeit  his  privilege  of  voting  for  a  second  candidate. 
As  far  back  as  1705,  the  English  House  of  Commons  had 
declared  that  a  person  having  the  right  to  vote  for  two  mem- 
bers could  not  vote  for  one  and  then  come  back  again  and 
vote  a  second  time  if  he  had  named  but  one  candidate  at 
first.1  In  case  more  freeholders  appeared  on  the  first  day  of 
an  election  than  could  be  polled  before  sunset,  and  if  the  can- 
didates or  their  agents  so  requested,  the  sheriff  could  adjourn 
the  poll  to  the  following  day.  Notice  of  such  an  adjourn- 
ment must  be  posted  on  the  court  house  door.  After  mak- 
ing the  three  proclamations  required,  the  returning  officer 
must  wait  at  least  an  hour  before  closing  the  poll.2 

The  writer  has  been  unable  to  ascertain  how  elections 
were  managed  in  Dutch  times,  but  when  the  first  legislative 
assembly  was  called  in  the  province  of  New  York  in  1683,  a 
form  of  indirect  election  seems  to  have  been  used.  Thus  in 
Long  Island  the  freeholders  of  each  town  chose  a  committee 
of  four  to  meet  at  the  sessions  house  of  each  riding  and  se- 
lect two  representatives  for  the  assembly.  A  similar  course 
was  followed  in  Esopus,  but  everywhere  else  the  counties  as 
a  whole  met  and  elected  assemblymen.3  Besides  this  single 
instance,  there  is  no  case  of  the  town  being  recognized  as  an 
election  district  in  New  York.  Under  the  first  general  law, 
the  cities,  counties  and  manors  in  the  province  elected  repre- 
sentatives, and  the  procedure  was  much  the  same  as  that 
existing  at  the  time  in  Virginia.  The  language  of  the  stat- 
ute seems  to  leave  the  question  whether  or  not  there  should 
be  a  poll  somewhat  within  the  discretion  of  the  sheriff.4 

1  15  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  135,  137. 

2  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §§  9,  10;  7  Hening,  519. 

3  Introduction  to  tke  Journal  of  the  New  York  Legislative  Council,  xi. 
*  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74;  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  jg^ 

Copies  of  the  polls  for  the  election  of  the  representatives 
from  New  York  City  in  1761,  1768  and  1769  were  reprinted 
in  1880  from  the  original  manuscript.  The  poll  of  1769  was 
printed  soon  after  the  election,  and  a  copy  of  it  is  preserved 
in  the  library  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society.  The 
poll  list  of  the  first  of  these  years  contains  the  names  of  the 
electors  arranged  under  the  various  letters  of  the  alphabet, 
though  not  in  exact  alphabetical  order.  There  are  six  col- 
umns on  every  page,  and  each  of  these  is  headed  with  the 
name  of  a  different  candidate.  Each  elector  could  name  four 
persons,  and  a  check  mark  was  placed  in  the  column,  answer- 
ing for  the  candidate  for  whom  he  voted.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  a  man  did  not  always  cast  as  many  votes  as  he 
was  entitled  to,  and  we  find  some  instances  where  but  one 
candidate  was  named.  The  pages  are  not  very  large  in  size, 
and  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  each  candidate  is  given 
at  the  end  of  the  book. 

In  1768  there  were  seven  candidates,  and  two  additional 
columns  were  provided,  the  one  headed  Freeholders  and 
the  other  Freemen,  The  abbreviation  do  is  placed  in 
the  columns  in  order  to  designate  in  which  capacity  an 
elector  voted.  Sometimes  we  find  that  the  same  individual 
possessed  both  qualifications.  An  extra  column  contains 
the  initials  N  Rl  or  S'  opposite  the  names  of  one  or  two 
electors.  In  this  poll  book  there  is  no  summary  of  the  total 
number  of  votes  cast. 

The  poll  of  1769  differs  in  some  particulars  from  those 
already  described.  The  columns  headed  Freeholders  and 
Freemen  are  placed  before  those  containing  the  names  of 
the  candidates  instead  of  after,  and  a  check  mark  is  used 
instead  of  the  abbreviation  do.  There  were  eight  candi- 
dates, and  their  names  are  given  in  full  on  the  first  page,  the 

1  Non-resident.  2  Sworn. 


1 64 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


columns  being  headed  merely  by  the  initial  letters  of  their 
surnames.  The  electors  are  arranged  according  to  the  days 
on  which  the  poll  was  taken.  Mr.  Richard  Mercer  is  stated 
to  have  been  the  first  voter,  while  James  Jauncey,  Esq.,  is 
declared  to  have  been  the  last.  On  the  final  page  there  is 
an  analysis  of  the  number  of  votes  cast  on  each  day  for  each 
candidate,  while  the  total  number  of  electors  is  1 5 1 5 .  In  a  few 
cases  the  occupations  of  the  voters  are  stated,  and  the  whole 
list  is  further  explained  by  the  following  series  of  symbols : 

q.  Signifies  the  Person  qualified  (sworn]  with  Respect  to 
his  Freehold. 

§  Voted  in  his  Right  in  the  Seceder1  s  Meeting. 

*  Stands  for  Scrutiny. 

N.  R.,  For  Non  Resident. 

The  general  election  law  of  New  Jersey  was  chiefly  note- 
worthy for  its  provision  that  the  sheriff  should  not  declare  the 
choice  upon  the  view  without  the  consent  of  the  candidates- 
The  proceedings  were  begun  by  the  reading  of  the  writ  and 
the  poll  was  taken  from  day  to  day  until  the  names  of  all 
the  electors  had  been  entered.  The  residences  'of  the 
electors,  as  well  as  theirjnames  and  those  of  the  candidates 
for  whom  they  voted,  were  placed  on  the  list.1 

In  Maryland  no  particular  method  of  conducting  an  elec- 
tion was  prescribed.  "The  safest  and  best  rule  for  the  pro- 
vinces to  follow  in  electing  such  delegates  and  representa- 
tives," was  declared  to  be  "  the  presidents  of  the  Proceedings 
in  Parliament  in  England  as  neare  as  the  Constitution  of  this 
Province  will  admitt.""  Accordingly,  the  sheriffs  were 
merely  directed  to  hold  the  elections  "  in  such  manner  and 
forme  as  ye  laws  of  England  and  this  province  doe  direct 
and  provide."3 

1  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40;  Nevill's  Laws,  142;   Allinson's  Laws,  66. 

-  Act  1678;  Maryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  60. 

3  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42;  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  II,  Bacon's  Laws. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


I65 


When  we  come  to  Georgia  we  find  no  authorization  of  the 
determination  of  an  election  either  by  show  of  hands  or  by  ac- 
clamation. The  returning  officer  was  simply  commanded  to 
attend  the  place  of  election,  and  enter  the  names  of  every 
person  presented  or  presenting  himself  as  a  candidate,  in  a 
book  or  roll,  leaving  a  fair  column  under  each  for  the  names 
of  the  voters.  As  each  elector  came  up  to  be  polled,  the  re- 
turning officer  repeated  distinctly  the  name  of  the  candidate 
voted  for,  before  recording  it  in  the  proper  column  of  his 
book.  No  elector  was  allowed  to  alter  his  vote  after  it  had 
once  been  entered,  or  to  vote  twice  at  one  and  the  same  elec- 
tion. Upon  adjourning  the  poll  at  convenient  times  during 
the  days  of  election,  the  returning  officer  first  added  up  the 
votes  cast  and  declared  the  total  to  the  candidates  present. 
Upon  reopening  the  poll  he  again  announced  the  number  of 
votes  received  by  each  candidate.  The  limit  of  an  election 
was  fixed  at  two  days  unless  a  scrutiny  were  demanded. 
Upon  waiting  two  hours  after  the  last  vote  had  been  given, 
or  at  any  time  if  the  candidates  present  consented,  the  poll 
could  be  closed.1 

C.  THE  PROPRIETARY  GOVERNMENTS."  The  six  colonial  govern- 
ments whose  method  of  taking  the  vote  remains  to  be  con- 
sidered were  all  proprietary  in  their  origin  and  the  pro- 
cedure followed  at  elections  appears  to  have  combined  the 
best  features  of  the  Puritan  ballot  and  the  English  poll. 
From  this  combination  a  general  system  was  evolved  which 
ought  to  have  been  less  liable  to  abuse  than  those  prevailing 
in  the  other  colonies.  Under  the  proprietary  governments, 
whenever  an  elector  was  entitled  to  vote  for  more  than  one 
candidate,  it  was  customary  to  place  on  the  same  ticket  the 
names  of  all  officers  having  similar  functions.  In  this  and 
other  respects  the  ballot  in  this  group  of  colonies  bore  a 

1  Act  June  gih,  1761.     Published  in  A'ppendix  B  to  this  work. 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

strong  resemblance  to  those  in  common  use  in  the  United 
States  just  before  the  introduction  of  the  Australian  ballot. 

The  earliest  mention  of  the  ballot  in  this  group  of  colonial 
governments  appears  in  1676  in  the  Concessions  and  Agree- 
ments granted  by  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey.  It  should 
be  remembered  in  this  connection  that  the  word  ballot  did 
not  occur  in  New  England ;  the  term  papers  being  always 
used  instead.  The  writer  is  therefore  inclined  to  believe 
that  this  is  the  first  appearance  in  America  of  the  ballot 
under  its  later  and  specific  name. 

The  language  of  the  West  Jersey  constitution  with  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  was  as  follows : 

"  And  the  said  elections  shall  be  made  and  distinguished  by  bal- 
lating  Trunks,  to  avoid  noise  and  confusion  and  not  by  holding  up 
of  the  hands  or  otherwise  howsoever."1  "And  also  that  all  such 
elections  as  aforesaid  be  not  determined  by  the  common  and  con- 
fused way  of  crys  and  voices,  but  by  putting  Balls  into  Balloting  Boxes 
to  be  provided  for  that  purpose  for  the  Prevention  of  all  Partiality 
and  whereby  every  MaA  may  freely  choose  according  to  his  own 
Judgement  and  honest  Intention."2 

These  two  passages  are  also  noteworthy  for  their  distinct 
repudiation  of  the  system  then  in  vogue  in  England  of  elec- 
tions by  acclamation  or  by  show  of  hands.  The  Concessions 
and  Agreements  went  into  operation,  but  the  writer  has  not 
been  able  to  discover  anything  which  throws  light  upon  the 
modtis  operandi  of  these  balls  and  boxes. 

In  East  Jersey  the  paper  constitution  of  1683  went  no 
further  than  to  provide  in  general  terms  that  all  elections 
should  be  by  ballot.3  Whatever  may  have  been  the  manner 
of  voting  under  the  Jersey  proprietary  governments,  their 

1  Chap.  3,  Learning  and  Spicer,  385. 

2  Chap.  32,  Learning  and  Spicer,  405. 

3 Fundamental  Constitutions,  chaps.  2,  3,5,  etc.;   Learning  and  Spicer,  153;    I 
Xew  Jersey  Archives,  397. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


167 


surrender  to  the  crown  in  1701  caused  the  introduction  of 
the  English  poll.1 

It  is  believed  that  the  ballot  as  it  appeared  in  the  Jerseys 
and  in  Pennsylvania  under  its  earlier  frames  of  government 
was  derived  from  Harrington.'  In  his  description  of  the 
ideal  commonwealth  of  Oceana,  the  English  philosopher 
made  provision  for  an  elaborate  and  complicated  system  of 
balls  and  boxes,3  modelled  upon  what  he  had  seen  in  Venice. 
A  recent  writer  seems  to  derive  the  written  ballot  in  New 
England  as  well  as  Pennsylvania  from  the  town  of  Emden  in 
Friesland,  where  Penn  had  resided  for  a  short  time.4  In 
support  of  both  views  it  may,  however,  be  stated  that  the 
Dutch  system  and  that  of  the  Oceana  were  in  essence  some- 
what similar,  and  both  may,  therefore,  have  had  an  influence 
on  the  institutions  of  the  American  colonies.  But  in  the 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  plans  all  of  the  cumbersome  details 
that  characterized  the  European  systems  were  omitted,  so 
that  nothing  more  than  the  germ  appears  to  have  been  trans- 
planted to  America. 

When  we  come  to  Pennsylvania  we  find  something  more 
substantial  than  the  vague  language  of  paper  constitutions. 
By  his  first  frame  of  government,  as  well  as  by  the  act  of 
settlement,  William  Penn  provided  that  all  elections  should 
be  by  ballot.5  How  this  provision  was  construed  is  shown 
by  a  debate  which  took  place  in  April,  1689,  in  the  Provin- 
vincial  Council.  The  matter  under  discussion  was  a  disputed 
election.  One  of  the  members  stated  that  the  election  was 
attended  by  great  disorder  and  that  many  persons  came  over 
from  Jersey  and  voted  in  Chester  County.  As  the  "  Poll 

1  See  p.  164,  ante.  2  See  Chalmers,  Political  Annals,  642. 

3  See  Harrington's  works,  ed.  Toland.  1771,  80,  83,  103  et  seq. 

4  2  Campbell,  Puritan  in  Holland,  England  and  America,  431  et  seq. 

5  §  20  of  Frame,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  33 :  §  18  of  Act  of  Settle- 
ment or  Charter  of  1682-3,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  42. 


1 6  8  HIS  TOR  Y  °F  ELE  CTIONS 

and  Ballot"  had  not  been  used,  he  argued  that  it  could  not 
be  known  whether  these  persons  were  really  residents  or 
not.  The  return  made  by  the  sheriff  was  exhibited,  and  it 
stated  on  its  face  that  the  electors  were  not  willing  to  vote 
by  ballot.  Some  of  the  councillors  seemed  to  think  that  a 
balloting  box  was  used  in  only  one  county  and  that  unless 
there  was  doubt  as  to  who  had  been  elected,  the  delegates 
should  be  chosen  by  "  votes,"  meaning  we  suppose  a  viva 
voce  election.  Another  member  of  the  council  declared  that 
the  ballot  was  used  at  Upland  and  in  all  the  lower  counties, 
"  by  black  and  white  beanes  put  into  a  hatt,  wch  is  balloting 
in  his  sence  and  cannot  be  denyed  by  the  charter,  when  it 
is  demanded."1 

This  debate  is  of  the*  utmost  importance*  as  throwing 
light  upon  the  course  of  procedure  prevailing  in  Pennsyl- 
vania during  the  earlier  years  of  her  history.  The  phrase 
"  Poll  and  Ballot,"  as  here  used,  aptly  characterizes  the  sys- 
tem of  elections  in  the  proprietary  governments  during  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  bean  ballot  may  possibly  have 
been  borrowed  from  Massachusetts,  although  we  should 
imagine  that  her  influence  among  the  Quakers  of  Pennsyl- 
vania would  be  very  slight.  The  fact  that  the  beans  were 
put  into  hats,  added  to  what  has  already  been  stated  in  re- 
gard to  some  of  the  New  England  colonies,2  shows  that  arti- 
cles of  head  gear  were' used  as  balloting  boxes  in  America 
as  well  as  in  ancient  Greece.  The  doubt  as  to  the  proper 
course  of  procedure  which  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the 
minds  of  the  councillors,  indicates  that  in  the  earlier  times 
the  returning  officer  was  free  to  act  as  he  pleased  in  regard 
to  matters  of  detail.  If  there  is  any  general  principle  to  be 
gathered  from  the  debate  in  the  Pennsylvania  Council,  it  is 
that  the  ballot  took  the  place  of  the  poll  in  the  English  sys- 

1  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  279.  2  See  pp.  142,  147,  148  ante. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  i£g 

tern  of  elections.  Unless,  therefore,  the  ballot  was  demanded, 
or  the  returning  officer  was  in  doubt,  elections  were  decided 
by  show  of  hands  or  by  acclamation. 

No  further  action,  whether  by  legislation  or  otherwise,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  taken  on  the  subject  of  elections  until 
1706,  when  the  poll  and  ballot  was  introduced  by  a  statute 
which  prescribed  in  detail  every  step  in  the  process  of  vot- 
ing. On  the  day  of  election 'the  clerks  were  first  sworn 
"  Truly  and  indifferently  to  take  the  said  Poll,  and  set  down 
the  names  of  each  Freeholder  and  Elector  and  the  Place  of 
his  Freehold  or  Estate,  and  to  poll  no  Elector  who  is  not 
attested,  if  so  required  by  the  Inspectors  of  such  Clerks." 
This  oath  explains  the  entries  in  the  poll  books,  for  the 
pages  of  these  books  were  divided  into  as  many  "  distinct  col- 
umns on- fair  Paper  as  there  shall  be  candidates  voted  for." 

As  each  elector  came  to  the  polls  he  delivered  to  the 
sheriff  or  judge  of  election  a  piece  of  paper  on  which  were 
written  the  names  of  the  persons  for  whom  he  voted.1  If  the 
elector  was  illiterate,  the  judge  was  required  to  open  the 
paper  and  read  aloud  the  names  of  the  persons  written 
therein,  and  ask  the  elector  if  those  were  the  candidates  for 
whom  he  voted.  Upon  receiving  an  affirmative  answer,  the 
judge  put  the  paper,  as  well  as  all  other  ballots  handed  to 
him,  into  a  box  which  the  sheriff  was  required  to  provide. 
In  case,  however,  a  voter  brought  no  tickets,  or  an  illiterate 
elector  did  not  wish  to  vote  for  the  persons  whose  names 
were  written  on  his  paper,  he  could  give  verbally  the  names 
of  the  candidates  he  "  mostly  desired  should  be  chosen,"  and 
the  clerks  were  required  to  make  entry  accordingly.'2  The 
element  of  secrecy  in  Pennsylvania  elections  depended,  there- 
fore, upon  the  option  of  the  individual  voter,  who  could  use 
the  simple  English  poll  if  he  saw  fit.  This  recognition  of 

1  Each  county,  it  will  be  remembered,  returned  eight  members. 

2  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 


I  70  HIST  OR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

the  illiterate  voter  is  not  found  outside  of  the  proprietary  do- 
minions of  Penn,  and  it  would  seem  to  have  been  necessary 
wherever  it  was  not  desired  to  confine  the  suffrage  to  persons 
who  could  read  and  write.  In  New  England,  for  example, 
except  in  the  election  of  assistants  which  an  unlearned  man 
could  easily  understand,  it  would  seem  that  the  written  bal- 
lot tendered  it  extremely  difficult  for  an  illiterate  freeman  to 
vote  as  he  desired.  A  friend  or  a  neighbor  might  prepare  his 
ballot,  but  then  he  could  not  be  sure  whether  it  contained 
the  names  of  those  for  whom  he  wished  to  vote.  The  Penn- 
sylvania statute  met  this  difficulty  and  electors  could  be  rea- 
sonably certain  that  they  voted  as  they  desired.  Of  course 
the  honesty  of  the  election  officers  was  an  important  factor 
in  bringing  about  this  result. 

After  1718  each  elector  handed  a  second  ticket  to  the 
judges  and  on  this  were  written  the  names  of  six  persons  for 
assessors  of  the  county  taxes.1  Seven  years  later  the  additional 
ballots  also  contained  the  name  of  a  candidate  for  the  office 
of  county  commissioner.2  In  this  province  the  poll  could  be 
closed  as  soon  as  the  electors  who  appeared  had  cast  their 
votes.  It  could  not,  however,  be  delayed  in  any  way  or  ad- 
journed from  place  to  place.3  The  official  report  of  a  riot 
which  took  place  at  the  regular  election  of  1742  in  Phila- 
delphia gives  us  a  picture,  although  an  imperfect  one,  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  voting  was  conducted  under  the  law  of 
4  Anne.  The  poll  was  taken  in  a  public  street  or  square 
and  the  freeholders  were  twice  attacked  by  a  mob  of  sailors 
and  roughs.  In  the  first  instance  the  electors  were  engaged 
in  chosing  inspectors,  and  in  the  second  the  voting  proper 
was  in  progress.4 

1  4  Geo.  I,  chap.  213,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  156. 

2 II  Geo.  I,  chap.  2,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  131. 

3  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

4  4  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  620. 


/A'  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


I/I 


In  the  latter  part  of  the  colonial  period  another  general 
election  law  was  enacted  which  further  elaborated  the  course 
of  procedure.  Before  nine  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the 
regular  day  for  choosing  representatives,  the  judges  of 
election  met  and  "with  all  expedition,"  allotted  to  each 
township,  ward  or  district  a  separate  door,  window  or  other 
convenient  place  of  the  house  where  the  election  was  to  be 
held.  At  each  of  the  places  so  designated  was  written  or 
printed  "  in  large  Characters  or  Letters  the  Names  of  each 
Township,  Ward  or  District  whose  Inspectors  shall  attend  to 
receive  the  Tickets  of  that  Place."  An  inspector  was  al- 
lowed to  receive  only  the  votes  from  the  district  which  he 
represented.  As  an  elector  came  up,  his  name  and  residence 
were  called  out  in  a  voice  loud  enough  to  be  heard  by  the 
inspectors  and  clerks  of  the  other  divisions.  The  inspector 
checked  off  the  name  of  the  voter  by  writing  the  word  voted, 
,or,  if  qualified,  by  adding  the  word  sivorn  or  affirmed  on  the 
margin  of  the  list  of  taxables  of  the  township  from  which  he 
came.  Meanwhile,  two  clerks  took  down  in  writing  the 
names  and  residences  of  the  electors  and  the  number  of  votes 
received  by  each  candidate  as  they  were  called  out  by  the 
inspectors.  The  ballots  were  placed  in  a  box  which  the 
inspector  bound  and  sealed  with  tape  and  gave  to  the  sheriff 
as  soon  as  the  voting  was  over.1 

Elections  were  conducted  in  Delaware  in  substantially  the 
same  way  as  in  Pennsylvania.  The  statute  of  4  Anne  in  the 
latter  government  was  reenacted  with  a  few  changes  in  the 
former."  So  also  was  that  of  6  George  III,  with  the  addition 
of  a  provision  requiring  the  sheriff  to  purchase  at  the  expense 
of  the  county  a  ballot  box  for  each  hundred.  These  boxes 
had  the  name  of  the  hundred  printed  on  the  cover  and  were 

1 6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §§  3,  c,  8,  10;  13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  13;  Hall  and  Sellers  ed., 
1775.  323- 
-:  7  Geo.  II.  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752, 118;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  147. 


172 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


delivered  to  the  inspectors  who  could  put  only  the  ballots 
received  from  their  own  hundred  into  the  proper  box.1 

The  Pennsylvania  method  of  dividing  each  county  into 
districts  and  providing  a  separate  polling  place  for  the 
electors  of  each  division  was  doubtless  necessary  on  account 
of  the  great  size  of  the  counties,  and  it  was  also  due  to  the 
system  of  inspectors  chosen,  as  has  already  been  shown," 
from  the  various  divisions  of  the  county.  It  is,  moreover, 
highly  probable  that  the  English  statute  of  18  George  II, 
chap.  1 8,  which  provided  separate  booths  for  each  district,3 
had  some  influence  on  the  Pennsylvania  statute  of  6  George 
III. 

Although  by  the  act  of  settlement  of  1682-3,*  the  in- 
habitants of  Penn's  dominions  were  given  the  privilege  of 
electing  a  double  number  of  sheriffs  and  coroners  who  were 
to  be  presented  to  the  governor  for  confirmation,  it  was  not 
until  1706  that  a  statute  explained  how  the  franchise  was  to. 
be  exercised  in  Pennsylvania.  This  law  provided  that  after 
the  election  of  the  members  of  the  assembly  had  been  com- 
pleted, the  coroner  or  the  judge  of  election  should  cause  a 
double  number  of  sheriffs  to  be  chosen  in  each  county.  The 
persons  selected  were  ordered  to  present  themselves  before 
the  governor  within  two  days  after  their  election,  and  if  he 
refused  to  commission  either  of  them,  the  candidate  first 
named  in  the  return  was  to  hold  the  office  for  one  year."' 
After  the  sheriffs  had  been  chosen,  the  sheriff  or  judges  pro- 
ceeded in  a  similar  manner  to  choose  a  double  number  of 
coroners.  Some  years  afterward,  however,  the  procedure 
was  greatly  simplified  by  requiring  electors  to  hand  in  with 
their  ballots  for  assemblymen  and  assessors  a  third  ticket 

1  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  207,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500.          2See  pp.  116  et  seq.,  ante. 
3  See  p.  159  ante.  4§  16,  I  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  16. 

5  4  Anne,  chap.  153,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  105. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


173 


containing  the  names  of  two  persons  for  sheriff  and  two  for 
coroner.1 

Delaware  had  anticipated  her  neighbor  by  enacting  in 
1700  a  law  similar  to  that  of  4  Anne,  except  that  the  gov- 
ernor was  allowed  six  days  within  which  to  commission  a 
a  sheriff.2  A  later  act  provided  that  the  under-sheriff  must 
never  be  the  person  chosen  but  not  commissioned,  and  that 
a  sheriff  could  not  have  another  term  until  he  had  been  three 
years  out  of  office.3 

Locke's  Constitution  contained  no  provision  in  regard  to 
the  method  of  voting  in  the  Carolinas  and,  on  account  of  his 
inability  to  obtain  copies  of  the  earlier  election  laws,  the 
writer  has  no  positive  information  about  the  condition  of  af- 
fairs there  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The  revised  statute 
of  1715  in  North  Carolina  merely  required  that  all  persons 
offering  to  vote  for  members  of  the  assembly  should  bring  to 
the  marshall  or  deputy  a  list  containing  the  names  of  the 
persons  he  voted  for.  That  this  law  \yas  not  framed  with 
a  view  to  secrecy  is  shown  by  the  subsequent  clause  requir- 
ing the  voter  to  subscribe  his  own  name  or  cause  the  same 
to  be  done.4 

In  1744,  however,  North  Carolina  adopted  the  secret  bal- 
lot. The  election  was  commenced  at  or  before  ten  o'clock 
on  the  morning  of  the  appointed  day  by  the  sheriff  making 
three  proclamations.  Each  voter  handed  to  the  sheriff  in 
the  presence  of  the  inspectors  "  a  Scroll  of  Paper  rolled  up 
with  the  Name  or  Names  of  the  Person  or  Persons  he  votes 
for  written  therein."  The  sheriff  put  all  scrolls  so  received 
into  "  a  small  Box  with  a  Lid  or  Cover  having  a  Hole  in  it 

1 II  Geo.  I,  chap,  269,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  293. 

2  12  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2ia,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  29;  Adams  ed.,  1797, 63. 

3  13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  65,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  133;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  164. 

4  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 


174 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


not  exceeding  Half  an  Inch  in  diameter;  which  said  cover 
shall  be  sealed  and  secured  on  the  Box  in  the  Presence  of 
the  Inspectors."  A  list  of  all  the  persons  who  voted  was 
taken  in  writing  by  the  sheriff  and  by  each  of  the  inspectors. 
The  hole  in  the  box  was  first  sealed  when  the  poll  was  ad- 
journed from  one  till  "  Half  an  Hour  after  Two  of  the 
Clock."1  The  law  just  quoted  continued  in  force  for  about 
sixteen  years.  In  1760  a  statute  was  enacted  which,  after 
declaring  that  there  was  no  election  law  then  in  operation, 
substituted  for  the  secret  ballot  the  English  method  accord- 
ing to  which  the  sheriff  took  the  poll  in  the  presence  of  the 
inspectors.  The  provision  requiring  all  the  votes  to  be  given 
openly  and  leaving  to  the  sheriff  the  duty  of  recording  them," 
seems  from  a  modern  point  of  view,  to  indicate  a  backward 
tendency.  Possibly  the  ballot  was  too  far  ahead  of  the  times 
to  be  practicable  in  North  Carolina. 

In  South  Carolina  the  complaint  of  the  lords  proprietors 
in  reference  to  the  practice  of  allowing  one  elector  to  bring 
in  the  vote  of  another  seems  to  indicate  that  some  form  of 
written  ballot  existed  as  far  back  as  i683.3  The  election  law 
of  1704  seems  to  recognize  the  ballot  as  well  as  the  viva 
voce  method  of  voting.  According  to  it  the  returning  officer 
was  to  open  the  election  by  reading  aloud  his  precept.  All 
voices  or  votes  given  before  the  reading  of  the  writ  were  void, 
and  the  electors  might  afterwards  alter  their  votes,  if  they 
saw  fit,  or  make  a  new  election.  Whenever  the  poll  was 
adjourned  the  returning  officer  was  required  "  to  seal  up  in  a 
paper  bag  or  box  all  the  votes  given  in  that  day  in  the  pres- 
ence of,  and  with  the  seals  of  two  or  more  of  each  contend- 
ing party."  At  the  commencement  of  each  session  procla- 
mation was  made,  and  the  sheriff  broke  the  seals  "  in  the 

1  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §§  1,2,  n;  Davis  and  Swanned.,  1752, 177,  233,  312. 

2  33  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §§  I,  2;  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247. 
8  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  Appendix,  406. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


175 


presence  of  the  parties  with  whose  scales  they  were  sealed 
up,  if  they  will  and  do  attend  to  see  it  done."  l 

After  the  parish  became  the  election  district,  the  names  of 
all  the  voters  were  "  fairly  entered  in  a  book  or  roll,  to  pre- 
vent voting  twice. >f  The  electors  brought  to  the  church 
wardens  scrolls  containing  in  writing  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons they  voted  for.  These  scrolls  were  rolled  up,  and  when 
the  poll  was  closed  they  were  placed  in  "  some  box,  glass  or 
paper,  sealed  up  with  the  seals  of  any  two  or  more"  of  the 
electors  present.  When  the  poll  was  re-opened  the  box  was 
unsealed.2  After  1719,  however,  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
duty  of  the  elector  to  place  "in  a  box,  glass,  or  sheet  of 
paper  prepared  for  that  purpose  a  piece  of  paper  rolled  up, 
whereon  is  written  the  name  of  the  Representatives  he  votes 
for."'*  It  is  important  to  note  that  in  South  Carolina  the 
secrecy  of  the  ballot  seems  to  have  depended  upon  the 
option  of  each  individual  voter,  for  the  statutes  of  both  1716 
and  1719  expressly  declared  that  electors  should  not  be 
obliged  to  subscribe  their  names  to  the  papers  they  handed 
in. 

§  8.  Count  of  the  Votes.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  state 
that  when  an  election  was  made  by  show  of  hands,  no  partic- 
ular method  of  counting  the  vote  was  needed.  Whenever 
a  poll  was  taken  the  mere  addition  of  the  names  or  marks  in 
the  particular  column  or  page  assigned  to  each  candidate 
would  suffice.  In  North  Carolina  we  find  that  the  number 
of  votes  given  for  each  candidate  must  be  cast  up  by  the  sheriff 
in  the  presence  of  the  inspectors,4  while  in  Georgia0  a  simple 
addition  and  declaration  was  required.6 

1  Act  1704,  no.  227,  §§  8,  10,  2  Cooper,  249. 

2  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §§  2,  3,  2  Cooper,  683. 
s  Act  1719,  no.  394,  §  5,  3  Cooper,  50. 

*  33  Geo.  II,  chap,  i,  §  i,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247. 
5  Act  June  9th,  1761.         6  Virginia,  "  Examination,"  3  Hening,  236. 


1 76 


HIST  OR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 


In  New  England  where  the  general  use  of  the  ballot  would 
seem  to  have  required  some  special  method  of  counting  the 
votes,  there  was  very  little  legislation  on  the  subject.  During 
the  later  years  of  the  first  Massachusetts  government  the 
ballots  cast  at  the  general  election  were  counted  by  tellers, 
and  these  officers  as  well  as  all  the  other  persons  present  at 
canvass  were  under  oath.1  The  Hartford  Constitution  pro- 
vided that  the  "  papers  should  be  received  and  told  by  one 
or  more  chosen  by  the  court."2 

Three  of  the  proprietary  governments  prescribed  a  detailed 
course  of  procedure  which  was  to  be  followed  in  counting 
ballots.  In  Pennsylvania  the  ballot  box  was  opened  as  soon 
as  the  poll  had  been  closed  and  the  papers  were  taken  out 
in  the  presence  of  the  inspectors.  The  ballots  were  then 
delivered  one  by  one  to  the  clerks  who  entered  the  names 
"  therein  expressed,  in  Columns  or  otherwise,  so  that  they 
shall  cast  up  how  many  times  each  person's  name  is  repeated 
in  the  same  and  set  it  down,  and  shall  then  pronounce  pub- 
licly to  the  people,  him  whose  name  is  oftenest  mentioned 
in  said  Papers  to  be  first  elected,"  and  so  on  until  the  regular 
number  of  eight  had  been  chosen.3  When  there  were 
separate  ballot  boxes  for  each  division  of  the  county,  it  was 
provided  that  the  jud'ges  should  proceed  to  "read,  count  and 
cast  up"  the  votes,  contained  in  the  boxes  which  the  in- 
spectors had  delivered  to  them  "bound  with  tape  and  sealed 
up."  The  clerks  and  inspectors  were  liable  to  a  penalty  of 
£10  for  not  delivering  their  lists  and  tallies  to  the  sheriff.4 

The  method  of  counting  the  votes  in  Delaware  under  the 
district  system  was  more  complicated.  The  boxes  were 

1  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  262,  292.     See  pp.  132,  141,  ante. 

2  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21. 

3  4  Anne,  chap.  129.  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67.     Similarly,  Delaware:  7  Geo.  II, 
chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118. 

4  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §  10,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1 775,  323. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


177 


opened  in  succession,  and  the  tickets  contained  in  each  one 
were  counted  separately.  When  the  ballots  had  been  com- 
pared with  one  another,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting 
in  each  hundred  had  also  been  ascertained,  all  the  ballots 
were  placed  in  one  large  box  and  thoroughly  mixed ;  "after 
which  no  more  tickets  or  votes  shall  be  received  on  any  pre- 
tence whatever."  Then  the  sheriff  or  coroner  took  the 
tickets  out  of  the  larger  box,  and  after  reading  them  aloud 
handed  them  one  by  one  to  the  clerks.  The  inspectors  and 
clerks  were  required  to  deliver  to  the  sheriff  their  tax  lists 
and  tallies  undefaced  "with  the  number  of  persons  voting 
ascertained  in  words  at  length  in  a  certificate  thereof  on  the 
said  lists  signed  by  them  respectively."  The  lists  of  the 
clerks  were  required  to  be  "  cast  up  and  the  number  of  votes 
for  each  candidate  mentioned  in  words  at  length,"  and  signed 
by  the  clerks  and  two  or  more  inspectors,.1  The  thorough- 
ness of  the  Delaware  method  of  counting  the  votes  ought  to 
have  reduced  to  the  lowest  limit  any  possibility  of  fraud  or 
collusion  on  the  part  of  the  election  officers. 

As  long  as  North  Carolina  used  the  ballot  she  also  pre- 
scribed a  tegular  method  for  conducting  the  canvass.  At 
sunset  the  ballot  box  was  opened  by  the  sheriff  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  candidates  and  the  inspectors.  The  scrolls  were 
then  taken  out  one  by  one  and  the  names  written  on  them  were 
read  aloud,  while  each  inspector  kept  a  tally  of  the  number 
of  votes  received  by  each  candidate.2  « 

In  most  of  the  proprietary  governments  there  were  provi- 
sions in  regard  to  defective  ballots.  Thus,  in  Pennsylvania,'5 
Delaware,4  North  Carolina,5  and  South  Carolina,6  ballots  con- 

1 12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  207,  §§  5,  7,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500. 
*  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  2,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

3  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

4  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  147. 

5  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §2,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

6  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  3,  2  Cooper,  683. 


I  7  8  HIS  TORY  OF  ELE  C  TIOXS 

taining  more  than  the  proper  number  of  names  were  declared 
void.  Delaware  also  rejected  those  containing  less  than  the 
required  number.1  In  Pennsylvania  ballots  found  "  deceit- 
fully folded  together,"  so  as  to  contain  the  names  of  more 
candidates  than  a  single  elector  was  entitled  to  vote  for,  were 
thrown  out.2  The  laws  of  both  the  Carolinas  provided  that 
if  two  or  more  scrolls  were  rolled  together  and  put  in  the  box 
as  one,  they  must  "  be  cast  away  as  useless  and  void.3 

In  a  few  instances  we  find  that  official  notices  of  their  elec- 
tion were  given  to  the  successful  candidates.  Thus,  in  South 
Carolina  the  wardens  were  required  to  notify  them  in  writing 
at  the  church  door  or  at  some  other  public  place,  and  that 
within  seven  days  after  the  ballots  had  been  counted.4  In 
Maryland  the  sheriffs  were  merely  required  to  notify  the  per- 
sons chosen  in  case  they  should  have  been  absent  from  the 
court  of  election.5 

The  laws  did  not  definitely  fix  the  proportion  of  votes  cast 
which  should  be  required  to  elect  a  candidate.  A  clear  dis- 
tinction was  not  in  all  cases  drawn  between  the  meaning  of 
the  words  majority  and  plurality,  and  this  is  shown  by  at 
least  one  statute  which  uses  the  two  words  synonymously.6 
In  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  Connecticut  declared 
that  all  officers  must  receive  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  in 
order  to  be  elected.  If  this  did  not  occur  the  election  must 
be  decided  by  the  assembly.7  In  Massachusetts,8  New 

1  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  §  4,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752, 118;  Adams  ed.,  1797, 147. 

2 4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67;  Delaware:  7  Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia, 
Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  118;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  147. 

3 North  Carolina:  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  2,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177; 
South  Carolina :  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  3,  2  Cooper,  683,  "  invalid  and  of  no  effect." 

4  Act  1716,  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683. 

5  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42;  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  II,  Bacon's  Laws. 

6  See  4  Geo.  II,  chap.  3,  Nevill's  Laws,  200. 

7  8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  453.     This  is  the  law  in  Connecticut  at  the 
present  day.  "Charter  1691,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  n. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  l  79 

York,1  New  Jersey,2  South  Carolina3  and  Georgia,1  a  majority 
seems  to  have  been  required.  In  the  other  colonies  as  a 
rule  a  simple  plurality  was  sufficient.  Thus  Rhode  Island 
enacted  that  inasmuch  as  there  might  "  happen  a  division  in 
the  votes  soe  as  the  greater  half  may  not  pitch  directly  on 
one  certaine  person,  yett  the  person  which  hath  the  most 
votes  shall  be  declared  elected."5  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  passages  just  quoted  from  the  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  colonial  records  place  those  colonies  squarely 
in  opposition  to  one  another  on  this  point,  but  as  to  other 
provinces  the  writer  does  not  feel  so  sure  of  his  position. 

§  9.  Return  of  the  Writ.  In  order  to  fully  understand  the 
subject  of  the  return  of  the  writ,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  history  of  England  with  reference  to  this  question,  for  it 
was  there  that  the  custom  originated-,  and  the  American 
colonies  merely  adopted  with  a  few  modifications  the  practice 
*of  the  mother  country. 

In  the  earliest  times  the  return  was  effected  by  the  sheriff 
simply  appending  to  the  writ  the  names  of  the  persons  chosen 
and  those  of  the  sureties  for  their  attendance  at  the  parlia- 
ment.6 This  method  rendered  false  returns  so  easy  that  a 
statute  was  passed  in  1405,  requiring  the  names  of  those 
chosen  to  be  written  in  an  indenture  "  under  the  seals  of  all 
them  that  did  choose  them  and  tacked  to  the  same  writ  of 
the  parliament,  which  indenture  so  sealed  and  tacked  shall 
be  holden  for  the  sheriff's  return  of  the  said  writ  touching  the 
knights  of  the  shire." 7  But  long  before  this  time  returns 

'3  William  and  Mary,  Bradford  ed.,  1710,  17.  2Act  1704. 

3  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  3,  2  Cooper,  683.  4  Act  1761. 

5  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  83.     See  also  Pennsylvania,  4  Anne,  chap. 
129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67;   "fair  majority,"  ibid.,  346;  4  Connecticut  Colonial 
Records,  8;  Virginia:  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  236;  North  Carolina:  17  Geo. 
II,  chap.  I,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

6  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  125. 

7  Statutes  7  Hen.  IV,  chap.  15,  §  5;  6  Hen.  VI,  chap.  4,  §  4. 


HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

were  occasionally  made  by  indenture.  Prynne  refers  to  such 
a  document  as  early  as  the  twelfth  year  of  Edward  the  First.1 
In  1444  a  statute  was  enacted  which  required  the  sheriff  to 
issue  precepts  to  the  mayor  or  bailiff  of  every  city  or  borough 
within  his  county,  and  ordered  them  to  return  the  precepts 
by  indenture  to  the  sheriff,  so  that  the  latter  might  make 
return  of  the  writ.2  Although  the  statute  of  7  Henry  IV 
seems  to  require  the  indenture  to  be  signed  by  all  the  voters 
participating  in  the  election,  the  custom  soon  arose  of  hav- 
ing a  few  of  the  electors  sign  in  behalf  of  the  rest.3  This 
practice  has  been  continued  almost  down  to  the  present  day, 
although  in  recent  years  the  original  method  of  return  by 
endorsement  of  the  sheriff  on  the  back  of  the  writ  has  been 
revived.4 

In  the  general  elections  of  the  Puritan  colonies  there  was 
no  necessity  for  any  form  of  return,  unless  the  sending  of 
the  proxies  to  the  capital  town  may  be  regarded  in  that- 
light.  Still  in  Massachusetts,  although  no  writs  were  issued 
for  the  election  of  deputies,  we  find  that  the  constables  of 
the  towns  were  required  to  make  return  under  their  own 
hand.5  As  a  natural  consequence  of  the  writ  and  precept 
system  of  the  provincial  government,  the  selectmen  of  the 
towns  made  their  returns  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  counties,  and 
the  latter  in  turn  notified  the  secretary  at  least  one  day  be- 
fore the  sitting  of  the  general  court.6 

Unlike  her  northern  neighbors,  Hartford  provided  for  the 

1  Prynne,  Brevia  Parliamentaria,  190.  2  23  Hen.  VI,  chap.  14. 

3  See  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  131,  and  preceding  pages,  where 
the  subject  is  thoroughly  discussed  and  the  above  view  supported. 
*  2  De  Franqueville,  Le  Gotwernment  et  Le  Parlement  Brittaniques,  446. 

5  4  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  pt.  i,  326;  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records, 
356;  Laws,  ed.    1660,  25,  ed.    1814,  97.     Also   I  New  Hampshire  Provincial 
Papers,  408. 

6  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  38,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  89.     For  forms,  see  Appendix 
A  of  this  work. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  t8i 

issue  of  writs,  and  under  the  Constitution  of  1638  returns 
were  made  by  the  constable  endorsing  on  the  back  of  his 
warrant,  under  his  own  hand,  the  names  of  those,  elected.1 

Among  the  colonies  which  followed  the  English  method  of 
elections,  the  earliest  statutory  provision  in  regard  to  returns 
is  found  in  Virginia.  By  this  the  sheriff  was  simply  directed 
to  make  a  return  before  the  sitting  of  the  assembly  by  sub- 
scription and  "  the  major  part  of  the  hands  oi  the  electors."  '* 
Subsequent  laws  required  the  return  to  be  made  by  endorse- 
ment on  the  back  of  the  writ,  according  to  a  specified  form.3 
The  law  in  Georgia  was  similar,  except  that  an  election 
officer  was  forbidden  to  return  himself.4  In  Maryland  the 
earlier  returns  were  signed  by  all  the  freemen  participating 
in  the  election.5  The  general  election  law  of  1678  provided 
that  the  four  persons  elected  in  each  county  should  be  re- 
turned by  four  separate  indentures  made  between  the  sheriff" 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  freemen  electing  on  the  other.  It 
was  required  that  these  indentures  should  bear  the  date  of 
the  day  of  election,  and  mention  the  time  and  place  of  the 
same.6  After  1715  two  indentures  were  provided  for  each 
candidate,  each  instrument  bearing  the  hands  and  seals  of 
both  the  sheriff"  and  the  electors.7  The  writer  has  found  no 
legislation  on  this  subject  in  New  York  beyond  that  con- 
tained in  the  law  of  1 1  Will.  Ill,  which  provided  that  the 

1 1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  21. 

2  5-6  Commonwealth,  Act  vii,  I    Hening,  411.     See  also   14  Car.  II,  Act  i,  2 
Hening,  82. 

3  ii   Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172;  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  7,  3  Hening,  241. 

4  Act  1761. 

5  See  Maryland  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  where  a  number 
of  these  are  given. 

6  Act  1678,  Maryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Act;  of  Assembly,  60.     Also 
4  William  and  Mary,  chap.  76;  4  Anne,  chap.  35;  Appendix  A  of  this  work. 

7  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42,  Baskett  ed.,  1723,  121 ;  2  Charles  Loid  Baltimore,  chap.  1 1, 
Bacon's  Laws. 


1 82  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

persons  elected  should  be  returned  "by  Indentures  sealed 
betwixt  the  said  sheriffs  and  the  said  Chuser  so  to  be  made."1 

Returns  were  made  in  Pennsylvania  by  a  pair  of  indent- 
ures sealed  between  the  sheriff  or  the  judges.and  six  or  more 
of  the  electors."2  Such  was  the  rule  for  assemblymen,  com- 
missioners and  assessors,  as  well  as  in  regard  to  the  double 
number  of  persons  chosen  for  the  offices  of  sheriff  and  coro- 
ner.3 This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  substantially  the  practice 
in  England  at  that  time.  Toward  the  close  of  the  colonial 
period  a  law  was  enacted  requiring  that  as  soon  as  all  the 
votes  had  been  counted,  the  sheriff  should  call  in  four  repu- 
table freeholders  as  assistant  judges.  Indentures  were  then 
sealed  between  the  assistant  judges  and  the  sheriff  as  one 
party,  and  at  least  six  inspectors  as  the  other.4  Six  years 
after  this  law,  a  Delaware  statute  provided  that  indentures 
should  be  sealed  between  the  sheriff  or  coroner  and  at  least 
two  inspectors  together  with  four  of  the  electors.5 

In  a  few  of  the  colonies  the  laws  required  that  returns 
should  be  addressed  to  a  particular  office  or  officer.  Thus, 
in  Maryland,  sheriffs  were  directed  to  certify  one  part  of 
each  indenture  "  and  transmit  it  to  the  Chancellor,  close 
sealed  up  under  his  hand  and  seal,  and  directed  to  the  Lord 
Proprietary  of  this  Province  and  alsoe  the  said  Chancellor."' 
A  subsequent  statute  ordered  that  the  return  should  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  governor  or  to  the  keeper  of  the  great  seal  of 
the  province.7  The  other  part  of  the  indenture  was  always 

1  Chap.  74,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 

2  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

3  Ibid.,  chap.  153,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  105;  2  Geo.  I,  chap.  269,  Franklin  ed., 
1742,  293.  • 

4  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §  II,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  323. 

5  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  207,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500. 

6  Act  1678,  Maryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  60. 

7  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore,  chap.  II,  Bacon's  Laws. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


183 


kept  by  the  sheriff  for  his  justification.  In  Virginia,  how- 
ever, returns  were  made  to  the  secretary's  office  at  James 
City,1  at  least  one  day  before  the  date  mentioned  in  the  writ.2 
In  South  Carolina  returns  were  made  to  the  master  in  chan- 
cery within  ten  days  after  an  election."3 

In  Pennsylvania  the  practice  in  this  matter  was  slightly 
different.  One  of  the  two  indentures  used  in  certifying  the 
return  of  assemblymen  was  delivered  to  the  governor  and 
the  other  to  the  assembly,4  while  the  returns  of  the  double 
number  of  coroners  and  sheriffs  were  sent  to  the  governor, 
who  had  the  power  of  appointing  these  officers.5  But  in  the 
case  of  the  commissioners  and  assessors  the  returns  were  ad- 
dressed to  the  justices  at  the  general  sessions  of  the  peace,6 
and  entered  on  the  records  in  the  sessions'  minute  book  by 
the  clerk  of  the  justices.  The  reason  why  the  indentures  of 
assemblymen  were  thus  addressed  seems  to  be  that  they 
served  a  twofold  purpose,  viz.,  as  a  certificate  of  election, 
and  as  a  power  of  attorney  enabling  the  newly  chosen  mem- 
bers to  act  for  their  constituents. 

It  may  be  inferred  that  the  provisions  just  enumerated  in 
regard  to  the  transmission  of  returns  were  derived  from  stat- 
utes in  force  at  that  time  in  the  mother  country.  Doubtless 
many  of  the  details  not  covered  by  the  colonial  statutes  were 
regulated  according  to  the  English  custom.  Some  time  be- 
fore the  date  set  for  the  assembling  of  the  newly  chosen  par- 
liament, and  with  all  convenient  expedition  within  a  period 
of  fourteen  days  after  an  election,  the  sheriff  was  required  to 
make  return,  either  in  person  or  by  deputy,  to  the  clerk  of 
the  crown  in  the  high  court  of  chancery.  For  the  entry  of 

1  14  Car.  II,  Act  1,  2  Hening,  82.  2  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  9,  3  Hening,  236. 

3  23  Geo.  II,  no.  885,  §  6,  4  Cooper,  98. 

4  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  eel.,  1742,  67. 

5  4  Anne,  chap.  153,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  105. 

6  II  Geo.  I,  chap.  269,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  293;  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  131. 


I  84  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

the  return  the  sheriff  was  to  pay  the  ancient  and  lawful  fees 
of  four  shillings  for  every  knight  of  the  shire,  and  two  shill- 
ings for  every  citizen,  burgess  or  baron" of  the  Cinque  Ports 
whom  he  returned.  The  charges  were  paid  by  the  king  out 
of  his  account  in  the  exchequer.1  The  clerk  of  the  crown 
was  required  to  enter  every  return  and  amendment  within 
six  days  after  receiving  the  same,  in  a  large  book  to  which 
all  persons  had  free  access  at  reasonable  times.2 

It  might  sometimes  happen  that  two  or  more  candidates 
received  exactly  the  same  number  of  votes,  and  the  question 
would  then  arise  as  to  which  one  should  be  returned.  In  Eng- 
land the  solution  of  this  problem  caused  considerable  difficulty 
to  the  returning  officers.  In  1625,  for  example,  the  mayor  of 
New  Lymington  made  return  that  two  candidates  had  re- 
ceived the  same  number  of  voices,  and  he  would  therefore 
leave  the  decision  to  the  House  of  Commons.  This  seems 
to  have  been  usually  done,  but  at  the  present  day  the  ques- 
tion is  settled  so  far  as  the  United  Kingdom  is'  concerned  by 
the  act  of  1872.  It  gives  the  sheriff,  who  is  generally  dis- 
qualified in  other  cases,  a  casting  vote  if  there  is  a  tie  be- 
tween two  or  more  opposing  candidates.3 

This  question  seems  to  have  arisen  in  but  two  of  the  Amer- 
ican colonies,  and  in  both  of  them  it  was  decided  that  the 
sheriff  could  return  whichever  one  of  the  candidates  he 
thought  fit.  In  Virginia  his  casting  vote  was  at  first  made 
conditional  on  the  fact  of  his  being  a  freeholder,4  but  after 
1763  this  was  not  necessary.5  If  it  appeared  on  a  scrutiny 
before  the  House  of  Burgesses  that  the  petitioner  and  the 
sitting  member  had  an  equal  number  of  votes,  and  if  the 
officer  who  took  the  poll  declared  on  oath  that  if  the  votes 
had  been  found  equal  at  the  time  of  the  election  he  would 

1  Statute  10  and  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  7.        '2  Statute  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  7. 

3  2  De  Franqueville,  Le  Gouver'nment  et  Le  Parlement  Brittaniques,  444. 

4  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  4, 3  Hening,  236.      5  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  7  Hening,  519. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

have  returned  the  petitioner,  then  the  petitioner  was  declared 
to  have  been  chosen.1  The  privilege  of  a  casting  vote  was 
also  granted  in  North  Carolina,  but  it  was  expressly  pro- 
vided that  in  no  other  case  could  the  sheriff  have  a  voice  in 
the  election  of  a  burgess.'2 

§  10.  Provisions  against  Fraud.  Many  of  the  provisions 
that  were  framed  for  the  express  purpose  of  preventing  fraud 
have  been  enumerated  in  other  parts  of  this  work.  Some  of 
the  special  provisions  which  did  not  conveniently  fall  under 
any  of  the  preceding  subdivisions  will  be  considered  in  the 
present  section.  For  example,  in  New  York  the  court  of 
election  was  required  to  be  held  in  the  most  public  and  usual 
place  in  the  county.  The  poll  could  be  taken  only  at  the 
place  of  election,  and  could  be  neither  delayed  nor  protracted 
until  all  the  electors  had  voted.3  Returning  officers  were 
forbidden  to  take  any  reward  or  fee  for  their  services.4 

A  case  which  occurred  in  New  Jersey  in  1725  affords  a 
good  example  of  the  abuses  which  the  law  requiring  the  con- 
sent of  the  candidates  to  an  adjournment  of  the  poll5  was 
aimed  to  prevent.  It  appears  that  the  sheriff  of  Burlington 
in  his  desire  to  favor  a  particular  candidate  kept  a  poll  open 
for  a  fortnight  and  adjourned  it  to  the  very  edge  of  the 
county  without  the  consent  of  the  other  candidate,  who  was 
a  Quaker.  So  gross  was  the  partiality  of  this  action  that 
both  parties  united  in  passing  a  law  against  similar  occur- 
rences in  the  future.6 

In  none  of  the  American  colonies  has  the  writer  found  a 
trace  of  the  English  custom  of  allowing  the  justices  of  the 
assize  to  take  inquest  against  a  sheriff  in  order  to  test  the 

1  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  12,  7  Hening,  519. 

s  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  n,  Davis  and  Svvann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

3  1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §§  4,  7,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28.  4  Ibid.,  §  3. 

5  For  example,  New  Jersey;  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  NevilFs  Laws,  142. 

6  Governor  Burnet  to  the  Lords  of  Trade;  5  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  767. 


:  86  IIISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

truth  of  his  return  and  permitting  the  latter  to  traverse  an 
office  found.1 

As  a  further  means  of  preventing  fraud  a  few  of  the  colon- 
ies followed  the  English  precedent,2  by  requiring  that  copies 
of  the  poll  must  be  delivered  on  demand  to  persons  who 
were  willing  to  pay  a  reasonable  charge  for  the  labor  of 
writing  them.  This  was  the  rule  in  Rhode  Island,"  New 
York,4  and  New  Jersey.5  Attested  copies  of  the  poll  could 
be  obtained  on  demand  of  the  candidates  in  both  Virginia6 
and  North  Carolina.7 

Subsequent  legislation,  in  Virginia  at  any  rate,  seems  to 
have  done  away  with  the  practice  of  requiring  copies  of  the 
poll  to  be  delivered  to  the  candidates.  Instead,  the  sheriff 
was  required  within  twenty  days  after  the  election  to  faith- 
fully deliver  upon  oath  "  unto  the  clerks  of  the  same  county 
court  attested  copies  of  the  original  poll  of  such  election, 
without  any  embezzlement  or  alteration,  to  be  recorded 
among  the  records  of  such  county  court."8  A  similar  plan 
had  been  adopted  in  England  some  years  previously,  except 
that  in  the  mother  country  the  poll  books  were  to  be  pre- 
served among  the  records  of  the  sessions  of  the  peace.9  In 
1763  and  thereafter  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  deliver  to  the 

1  See  Statutes  1 1  Hen.  IV,  chap.  I ;  6  Hen.  VI,  chap.  4. 

2  See  Statute  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap.  25,  §  6. 

3  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

4 1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  8,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 
0  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 

6  I  r  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2, 3  Hening,  172;  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  7,  3  Hening,  236.  "  The 
sheriff  shall,  as  soon  as  may  be,  cause  a  true  and  perfect  copy  "  to  be  made,  and 
shall  deliver  it  with  his  own  hand  "  to  the  candidate  or  other  person  applying  for 
it  on  his  behalf." 

7  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  9,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.  1752,  177;  33  Geo.  II,  chap,  i, 
§  9,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247.     By  this  act  the  attested  copy  must  be  delivered  within 
ten  days  to  the  candidates  or  to  persons  applying  for  it  in  their  behalf. 

8 10  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  §  8,  4  Hening,  475.      9  Statute  10  Anne,  chap.  23,  §  5. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  jg/ 

county  clerk,  on  oath,  an  attested  copy  of  the  poll,  and  a  list 
of  those  not  sworn,  with  the  names  of  the  persons  for  whom 
they  had  voted.1 

In  Pennsylvania  just  before  the  Revolution,  sheriffs  were 
ordered  to  return  on  demand  to  the  House  of  Assembly  the 
list  of  the  taxables  and  the  lists  and  tallies  of  the  clerks.2  A 
similar  rule  had  been  introduced  in  South  Carolina  a  few 
years  before  the  date  of  the  Pennsylvania  statute.  The 
church  wardens  were  required  to  attend  the  assembly  with 
the  master,  in  chancery,  who  was  to  carry  the  return  and 
leave  with  the  clerk  of  the  house  a  list  of  the  persons  that 
had  voted.3  In  the  former  of  these  colonies  there  were  ex- 
press statutory  provisions  to  the  effect  that  the  votes  and 
tickets  of  all  such  as  refused  to  take  the  oath  should  be 
openly  rejected.  The  ballots  of  every  person  swearing  or 
affirming  were  to  be  put  in  a  box,  and  a  ticket  so  received 
could  not  be  suppressed.4 

§11.  Contested  Elections.  At  the  meeting  of  His  Majesty's 
Privy  Council  in  1684,  when  the  New  York  Charter  of  Liber- 
ties was  under  discussion,  the  clause  of  that  instrument  which 
gave  to  the  assembly  with  the  consent  of  the  governor  power 
to  judge  of  undue  elections  and  the  qualifications  of  mem- 
bers, was  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  "  It  may  be  incon- 
venient and  is  not  practised  in  some  other  Plantations."5 
Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  the  Privy  Council,  the  present 
writer  believes  that  he  has  found  sufficient  evidence  to  justify 
him  in  stating  as  a  general  rule  that  contested  elections  in  the 
American  colonies  were  everywhere  decided  by  the  body  to 

1  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  15,  7  Hening,  519.     This  seems  to  supersede  the  act  of 
10  Geo.  II. 

2  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  8,  §  9,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  323. 

3  23  Geo.  II,  no.  885, 4  Cooper,  98. 

4  13  Geo.  I,  chap.  284,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  356. 

5  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  359. 


!  8 8  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

whose  membership  the  candidate  aspired.  Thus  Massachu- 
setts by  the  very  law  which  authorized  the  sending  of  depu- 
ties to  the  general  court,  gave  them  power  to  hear  and  de- 
termine among  themselves  any  differences  that  might  arise 
as  to  the  election  of  any  of  their  number.1 

The  general  court  of  Plymouth  reserved  to  itself  the  power 
of  rejecting  unfit  deputies  and  of  directing  the  towns  to  make 
a  new  choice.2  New  Hampshire  nearly  a  century  afterwards 
gave  to  the  town  officers  the  power  of  settling  disputes  in 
regard  to  elections,  and  in  case  of  their  failure  to  agree  the  de- 
cision was  left  to  the  house  of  representatives.3  The  Hartford 
constitution  conferred  upon  the  deputies  the  power  of  judg- 
ing of  thek  own  elections,4  and  it  may  be  conjectured  that 
when  the  general  management  of  elections  was  delegated  to 
a  grand  committee  of  both  houses  in  Rhode  Island,  the  deci- 
sion of  contests  was  included  as  well  as  control  over  other 
matters.5 

The  various  provisions  we  have  enumerated  refer,  it  will 
be  noticed,  only  to  the  elections  of  members  of  the  lower 
houses  of  the  New  England  legislatures.  The  writer  has 
found  nothing  which  would  tend  to  show  how  contests  con- 
cerning the  election  of  governors  and  other  general  officers 
were  decided.  The  rule  in  regard  to  contested  elections  in 
the  Puritan  colonies  was  equally  true  in  both  the  royal6  and  the 
proprietary  governments.  The  laws  of  1682  recognized  the 
right  of  both  houses  of  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  to  judge 
of  the  elections  of  their  own  members,7  although  when  the  up- 

1 1634-5;  3  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  119.  '•*  Brigham,  109. 

3  I  Geo.  II,  chap.  107;  Fowle  ed.,  1771, 142;  ed.  1771,  166. 

4  1638;  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  24. 

5  Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 

6  See  in  particular  the  Georgia  law  of  June  gth,  1761,  published  in  Appendix 
B,  post. 

7  Laws  agreed  on  in  England,  chap.  3,  i  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  37. 


L\r  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  igg 

per  house  ceased  to  be  an  elective  body  its  power  in  this 
respect  was  necessarily  abolished.  The  method  of  trying  a 
contested  election  case  was  by  a  scrutiny  or  examination 
of  the  votes  cast,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  any  errors 
that  might  exist  in  the  poll.  In  1737  the  New  York  legisla- 
ture spent  a  month  in  making  a  scrutiny.1  Virginia  recog- 
nized the  English  method  of  contest  by  petition  of  the  de- 
feated candidate  as  well  as  the  scrutiny,2  before  the  house  of 
burgesses. 

In  the  three  most  southern  colonfes  there  were  more  spe- 
cific provisions  in  regard  to  contested  elections.  Thus  in 
North  Carolina,  sheriffs  were  required  to  attend  the  assembly 
for  the  first  three  days  of  its  sitting  (unless  previously  dis- 
missed), for  the  purpose  of  giving  information  in  case  of  con- 
tested elections,  and  also  of  showing  the  assembly  a  list  of 
the  votes  cast  for  every  person.3  The  sheriffs,  and  afterwards 
the  church  wardens,  were  ordered  to  attend  the  assembly  of 
South  Carolina  during  the  first  two  days  of  the  session,  for 
the  same  purpose  as  in  the  northern  province,  although  the 
wardens  were  accompanied  by  the  master  in  chancery.4 

In  Georgia  a  scrutiny  must  be  made  if  it  were  demanded, 
while  returning  officers  were  compelled  upon  summons  from 
the  commons  house  of  assembly  to  attend  and  give  informa- 
tion to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  of  any  matters  or  disputes 
that  arose  about  the  election  of  members  returned  by  them. 
They  were  also  required  to  show  the  poll,  and  were  liable  to 
a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  sterling  for  refusal  to  do  so.5 

1  6  Neisj  York  Colonial  Documents,  56..  The  proceedings  are  given  in  full  in  the 
first  volume  of  the  journal  of  assembly,  circa  page  700.  Also  South  Carolina,  Act 
1716,  no.  365,  §§  i,  4,  2  Cooper,  683. 

-  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §§  12,  14,  7  Hening,  519. 

3  Laws  1715,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

4  Act  1704,  no.  227,  §  4;  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  22,  2  Cooper,  227,  683;  23  Geo 
II,  no.  885,  §  6,  4  Cooper,  98.  s  Act  1761. 


i  go 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


§  12.  Privileges  of  Voters.  In  three  of  the  southern  col- 
onies electors  were  granted  certain  privileges,  in  order,  it 
may  be  supposed,  that  they  might  be  the  more  willing  to 
exercise  their  franchise.  The  writer  has  been  unable  to  find 
any  provisions  of  this  sort  among  the  statutes  regulating 
elections  in  England  during  the  colonial  period. 

In  Virginia,  for  example,  no  arrests  were  permitted  on 
election  days  except  for  felony  and  breach  of  the  peace,  and 
processes  executed  at  the  election  of  burgesses  were  void.1 
In  South  Carolina  an  elector  was  exempt  from  the  serving  of 
writs  or  processes  eundo,  manendo,  redeundo,  that  is  to  say, 
during  his  journey  to  and  from  the  polls,  or  during  his  stay 
there  for  the  purpose  of  voting,  or  for  forty-eight  hours 
after  the  scrutiny  was  finished.  The  penalty  for  breach  of 
this  law  was  a  fine  of  twenty  pounds  paid  to  the  aggrieved 
party  by  the  officer  offending,  and  the  nullity  of  the  writs.' 
The  rule  in  Georgia  was  similar  to  that  in  South  Carolina, 
and  civil  officers  were  forbidden  to  execute  writs  or  other 
processes  upon  the  body  of  the  elector,  provided  he  did  not 
consume  more  than  forty-eight  hours  upon  his  journey.3 

§  13.  Compulsory  Voting.  Probably  the  earliest  law 
enacted  in  the  American  colonies  on  the  subject  of  compul- 
sory voting  was  that  passed  by  the  general  court  of  Plymouth 
in  1636.  It  provided  that  "  for  default  in  case  of  appearance 
at  the  election  before  mentioned  without  due  excuse,  each 
delinquent  to  be  amerced  in  3s  ster."4  Compulsory  voting 
in  this  colony  was  required  as  late  as  1671,  if  not  later.  In 
the  revision  of  the  laws  published  in  that  year  it  was  pro- 
vided that  "  whosoever  of  the'  Freemen  do  not  appear  at 
Election  in  Person  or  by  Proxy,  he  shall  be  for  such  neglect 

1  14  Car.  II,  Act  Ivii,  2  Hening,  86;  4  Anne,  chap.  3,  §  6,  3  Hening,  248. 

2  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  24,  2  Cooper,  683.  3  Act  1761 
*  II  Plymotilh  Colony  Records,  IO;   Brigham,  37. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


191 


amerced  to  the  Treasury  Ten  Shillings."1  Virginia  was  the 
only  other  colony  which  insisted  upon  compulsory  voting 
throughout  her  history.  The  earliest  statute  bearing  on  the 
subject  was  passed  in  1646,  and  it  speaks  of  the  small  num- 
ber of  persons  who  attended  the  elections.  In  order  to 
remedy  the  evil  it  was  then  enacted  that  all  freemen  absent 
without  lawful  cause  should  be  fined  one  hundred  pounds  of 
tobacco.2  After  1662  the  amount  of  the  penalty  was  in- 
creased to  two  hundred  pounds  of  the  same  staple.3  The 
law  as  to  compulsory  voting  was  reenacted  in  1705,*  and 
again  in  I763.5 

In  a  previous  chapter  it  has  been  explained  that  from  the 
earliest  times  in  Maryland  attendance  in  person  or  participa- 
tion in  the  election  of  a  representative  to  the  assembly  was 
required  of  all  freemen.6  Later  on  the  rule  in  this  colony  as 
to  compulsory  voting  seems  to  have  fallen  into  disuse  until 
1715,  when  it  was  revived,  and  all  electors  were  compelled 
to  attend  the  court  of  election  under  penalty  of  one 
hundred  pounds  of  tobacco,7  unless  they  could  show 
sufficient  cause  for  their  absence.  Whether  this  provision 
remained  in  force  until  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  or 
whether  it  fell  into  disuse,  the  writer  is  not  prepared  to  state. 
Nothing  that  would  prove  the  repeal  of  the  law  has  been 
found. 

In  Delaware,  by  a  statute  of  7  George  II,  it  was  enacted  that 
every  elector  convicted  at  the  next  quarter  sessions  on  the 
oath  of  one  credible  witness  of  having  absented  himself  from 

1  Book  of  General  Laws,  chap.  v.  §  4,  Brigham  258. 

2  21  Car.  I,  Act  xix,  I  Henirg,  333. 

3  14  Car.  II,  Act  1,  2  Hening,  82.  4  4  Anne,,  chap.  2,  §  3,  3  Hening,  236. 
5  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap,  i,  §  9,  7  Hening,  519.  6  See  p.  34,  ante. 

"8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42,  Baskett  ed.,  1723,  121;  also  2  Charles  Lord  Baltimore, 
chap.  1 1,  §  6,  Bacon's  Laws. 


192 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


an  election  should  be  fined  twenty  shillings,  unless  he  had 
been  detained  by  sickness  or  unavoidable  accident.1 

Outside  of  the  four  colonies  already  mentioned,  compul- 
sory voting  at  general  elections  does  not  appear  to  have 
existed.  North  Carolina,  we  shall  see,  introduced  the  prin- 
ciple in  parish  elections.2  In  a  Massachusetts  statute  the 
following  permissive  clause  has  been  found  which  might 
possibly  have  reference  to  compulsory  voting  at  the  election 
of  assistants,  the  principle  being  applied  when  the  names  of 
the  candidates  were  in  turn  balloted  upon.  "  In  all  cases 
where  any  freeman  is  to  give  his  vote,  be  it  in  court  of  elec- 
tion   or  the  like,  if  he  cannot  see  light  or 

reason  to  give  it  positively  one  way  or  the  other,  he  shall 
have  liberty  to  be  silent  and  not  pressed  to  a  determinate 
vote,  which  yet  shall  be  interpreted  and  accounted  as  if  he 
voted  for  the  negative. "d 

Under  the  head  of  compulsory  voting  it  is  perhaps  well  to 
include  a  few  laws  which  were  in  force  in  several  of  the 
northern  settlements  during  the  earlier  years  of  their  history. 
Thus  in  Providence,  under  the  date  of  1636,  we  find  a  pro- 
vision that  any  one  not  appearing  at  the  town  meeting  within 
fifteen  minutes  after  the  time  mentioned  by  the  person  who 
gave  warning,  should  be  fined  one  shilling  sixpence.4  In 
a  similar  way  Portsmouth  fined  freemen  who  were  more  than 
a  half  hour  late,5  and  New  Haven  imposed  a  mulct  of  one 
shilling  upon  all  the  planters  who  came  in  after  their  names 
had  been  called.6 

§  14.  Bribery  and  Other  Means  of  Influencing  Voters.  It 
is  a  remarkable  fact  that  with  one  exception,  and  that  of 
comparatively  late  date,  there  are  absolutely  no  statutes  in 

1  7Geo.  II,  chap.  6ia,  Franklin  and  Kail  ed.,  1752, 118;  Adams  ed.,  1797, 147. 

2  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  305. 

3  Laws,  ed.  1660,  78;  ed.  1814,  200.     4  i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  13,  15. 
5  Ibid.,  8l.  6  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  So. 


AV  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


193 


any  of  the  New  England  colonies  on  the  subject  of  bribery. 
Whether  the  reason  of  this  was  that  elections  were  really 
purer  in  that  part  of  the  continent,  or  because  the  Puritans 
considered  it  beneath  their  dignity  to  speak  of  the  sale  or 
purchase  of  votes,  the  writer  does  not  venture  to  decide. 
The  absence  of  such  laws  should  speak  for  itself. 

The  single  exception  referred  to  was  in  Rhode  Island, 
where  a  general  act  against  bribery  and  corruption  was 
passed  in  1737.  Judging  from  the  provisions  of  the  statute, 
this  evil  must  have  been  prevalent  to  an  alarming  extent  in 
that  colony.  Persons  offering  bribes  were  declared  liable  to 
forfeit  double  the  sum  offered  and  persons  accepting  them 
were  to  be  similarly  punished  besides  being  incapitated  for 
voting  for  any  officer  during  the  space  of  three  years. 
When  there  was  insufficient  proof  the  accused  could  purge 
himself  by  oath,  but  in  default  of  this  he  was  adjudged 
guilty.1  Ten  years  later  a  more  stringent  law  was  passed. 
By  this  all  persons  were  required  to  take  an  oath  that  they 
had  not  been  bribed,  while  the  officers  and  justices  were  or- 
dered to  swear  that  they  "justly  and  truly  abhorred  the 
most  detestable  crime  of  Bribery,"  and  that  they  would  do 
their  best  to  expose  all  persons  guilty  of  such  practices. 
Upon  proof  to  the  assembly  that  a  single  vote  had  been  un- 
lawfully obtained  by  the  "  procurement,  knowledge  and  con- 
sent "  of  any  successful  candidate,  his  election  was  to  be  de- 
clared null  and  void.  The  oath  of  a  person  giving  a  bribe 
was  to  stand  against  that  of  a  person  receiving  one,  and  upon 
conviction  a  freeman  who  had  been  bribed  was  forever  ex- 
cluded from  voting,  acting  as  a  freeman,  holding  office,  or 
giving  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice.2  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  how  bribery  could  exist  under  laws  as  stringent  as 
these. 

1 10  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed,  1744,  193.         2  20  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  13. 


194 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


Passing  beyond  New  England,  we  find  that  the  laws  of 
New  York  and  Maryland  were  silent'on  the  subject  of  brib- 
ery, but  that  those  of  all  the  remaining  colonies  had  some- 
thing to  say  on  the  subject.  Thus,  in  East  Jersey,  notwith- 
standing the  careful  methods  provided  by  the  constitution  of 
1683,  it  was  thought  well  to  order  that  all  elections  should 
be  free  and  voluntary,  and  that  whenever  any  bribe  or  indi- 
rect means  could  be  proved  both  the  giver  and  the  receiver 
were  to  forfeit  forever  their  privilege  of  voting  or  being  voted 
for.1  West  Jersey  was  almost  as  severe,  and  no  person  could 
be  elected  if  he  gave,  bestowed  or  promised  "  directly  or  in- 
directly to  the  said  parties  electing ;  any  Meat,  Drink,  Money 
or  Moneys  worth  for  procurement  of  their  Choice  and  Con- 
sent." Persons  receiving  bribes  could  neither  elect  nor  be 
elected  for  seven  years,  nor  could  they  execute  any  office  of 
trust  during  that  period.2  New  Jersey  merely  prohibited 
bribery  in  any  form,  and  disfranchised  all  offenders.3 

The  aim  of  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  Pennsylvania  laws 
was  to  prevent  the  crime  of  bribery,  and  its  provisions  were 
similar  to  those  of  the  West  Jersey  constitution,  except  that 
the  person  bribed  was  also  deprived  of  his  right  to  vote.4  In 
the  Delaware  government  candidates  bribing  or  treating 
electors  were  let  off  with  a  fine  of  ten  pounds,  while  a  voter 
accepting  a  bribe  was  fined  half  that  amount.  A  bribe  was 
defined  to  include  a  "  Gratuity,  Gift,  Bribe,  strong  Drink, 
Treats,  Entertainments  or  other  Reward."  °  Virginia6  and 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  153. 

2  West  Jersey  Concession  and  Agreement,  chap.  33,  Learning  and  Spicer,  405. 

3  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  §§  3,  4,  NevilPs  Laws,  142;  Allinson's  Laws,  69. 

4  Laws  agreed  upon  in  England,  1682;  also  chap.  58;  chap.  36,  Petition  of 
Right,  1693;   Markham's  Frame  of  Government,  1696;  Laws,  ed.  Harrisburg, 
1879,  99,  122,  203,  249;  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 

5  13  Geo.  II,  chap.  65,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752, 133;  Adams  ed.,  1797,  164. 

6  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3Hening,  172;  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §§  10,  11,3  Herring,  236; 
3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  19,  7  Hening,  519. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  IO/5 

North  Carolina1  merely  declared  that  the  elections  of  persons 
who  offered  bribes  should  be  null  and  void.2 

The  two  southernmost  colonies  had  laws  framed  with  the 
idea  of  putting  a  stop  to  all  forms  of  influencing  voters. 
Thus  in  South  Carolina,  persons  coercing  or  bribing  voters, 
or  abusing  or  menacing  them  afterward  because  they  had 
voted  in  a  particular  way,  were  taken  before  a  justice  of  the 
peace  and  bound  over  in  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds,  with  two 
sureties  of  twenty-five  pounds.  If  convicted  at  general  ses- 
sions, such  offenders  were  fined  fifty  pounds.1  The  provi- 
sions of  the  Georgia  statute  were  more  stringent  than  those 
of  the  South  Carolina  law.  Any  person  violating  the  free- 
dom of  the  day  of  election  by  arresting,  menacing  or  threat- 
ening, or  attempting  to  overawe,  affright  or  force  any  per- 
son, properly  qualified,  to  vote  against  his  inclination  or 

1  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  8,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

'2  The  language  of  the  law  respecting  bribery  in  the  former  colony  is  so  care- 
fully framed  with  a  view  of  covering  the  entire  field  that  it  has  seemed  proper  to 
publish  it  in  full. 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted, 
That  no  person  or  persons  hereafter  to  be  elected  as  a  burgess  shall  directly  or 
indirectly,  by  any  ways  or  means  at  his  or  their  proper  charge,  before  his  or  their 
election,  give,  present  or  allow  to  any  person  or  persons  haveing  voice  or  vote  in 
such  election  any  money,  meat,  drink  or  provision,  or  make  any  present,  gift,  re- 
ward or  entertainment,  or  any  promise,  ingagement  or  obligation  to  give  or  allow 
any  money,  meat,  drink  or  provision,  present,  reward,  or  entertainment  in  order 
to  procure  the  vote  or  votes  of  such  person  or  persons  for  his  or  their  election  to 
be  a  burgess  or  burgeses,  and  every  person  or  persons  soe  giveing,  presenting  or 
allowing,  makeing,  promiseing  or  engageing  any  money,  meat,  drink  or  provision 
in  order  to  procure  such  election  being  elected  shall  be  disabled  and  incapable 
to  sit  and  act  as  a  burgess  in  that  assembly,  but  that  such  election  shall  be  void 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  if  the  said  returne  or  election  had  never  been  made.1' 
II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172. 

As  though  the  above  provisions  were  not  sufficient,  the  act  of  4  Anne  added  a 
clause  forbidding  the  bribery  of  persons  in  particular,  or  "  any  such  county,  town 
or  corporation  in  general,  or  to  or  for  the  use,  advantage,  benefit,  imploiment, 
profit  or  preferment "  thereof. 

3  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  23,  2  Cooper,  683. 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

conscience,  or  obtaining  any  vote  by  bribery,  or  who  should, 
after  the  election  was  over,  menace,  "despightfully  use"  or 
abuse  any  person  for  voting  as  he  desired,  such  persons,  upon 
sufficient  proof  presented  before  two  justices  of  the  peace, 
should  be  bound  over  to  the  next  general  sessions.  If  con- 
victed at  his  trial,  the  offender  was  to  forfeit  not  more  than 
twenty  pounds.  Returning  officers  were  forbidden  to  influ- 
ence, or  even  attempt  to  influence  or  persuade,  any  elector 
so  as  to  prevent  him  from  voting  as  he  had  first  intended.1 

In  addition  to  the  provisions  already  enumerated  concern- 
ing attempts  to  influence  voters  by  means  other  than  bribery, 
we  find  that  in  New  Jersey  a  fine  of  ten  pounds  was  imposed 
on  persons  who  "  Either  by  Assertions  or  False  Reports  of 
any  of  the  Candidates,  either  in  Words  of  Message  or  Writ- 
ing, or  in  any  other  Manner,  and  endeavour  to  frighten  or 
by  indirect  Means  persuade  any  Elector  to  give  or  dis- 
suade any  Elector  from  giving  his  Vote."2 

In  Pennsylvania  persons  were  forbidden  to  disturb  the 
freedom  of  an  election  day  by  menacing  voters  or  by  threaten- 
ing them  with  force  of  arms.  Candidates  offering  to  serve  for 
nothing  or  for  less  than  the  law  allowed  in  order  to  influence 
voters,  were  liable  to  a  fine  of  five  pounds.3  In  this  province 
the  elections  of  sheriffs  and  coroners  furnished  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  influencing  voters.  We  learn  from  a  law 
passed  with  a  view  of  preventing  bribery  and  corruption  on 
these  occasions  that  it  was  a  common  practice  to  make 
electors  vote  in  a  particular  manner  "  by  giving  them  strong 
Drink  and  using  other  Means  inconsistent  with  the  Design 
of  voting  freely  at  Elections  by  Means  whereof  many  un- 
guarded Persons"  are  unwarily  drawn  in  to  engage  their  Votes 
and  rendered  altogether  incapable  of  discharging  their  Duty 

1  Act  June  9th,  1761.  2  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  §  5,  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 

:<  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


197 


in  that  sober  and  weighty  manner  the  Occasion  requires,  but 
become  more  particularly  disorderly  at  these  Times  whereby 
great  Confusions  and  Mischiefs  arise."  With  a  view  of  put- 
ting a  stop  to  these  abuses  a  fine  of  five  pounds  was  imposed 
on  persons  bribing  or  bribed.  Candidates  guilty  of  such 
practices  could  not  be  elected  to  office  for  a  year,  and  were 
also  subject  to  a  fine  of  ten  pounds.1 

In  England  the  laws  against  bribery  were  almost  as  strin- 
gent as  those  in  the  colonies.  A  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1677  touched  upon  the  subject  with  special  ref- 
erence, to  excessive  treating  of  voters.  It  was  forbidden  that 
after  'the  test  of  a  writ  any  meat  or  drink  exceeding  "  the 
true  value  "  of  ten  pounds  should  be  given  to  electors  in  any 
place  except  at  the  dwelling  place  or  habitation  of  a  candi- 
date. That  was  defined  to  be  the  place  where  he  had  lived 
for  six  months  previous  to  the  election.  The  election  of  a 
person  offering  bribes  in  this  or  any  other  way  was  declared 
void.2  In  1700-1  the  lending  of  money  to  a  corporation 
without  interest  with  intent  to  influence  the  election  of  such 
corporation  was  declared  to  be  an  unlawful  and  dangerous 
practice.3  General  statutes  on  the  subject  of  bribery  were  en- 
acted some  years  afterward.4  Both  the  electors  and  the  re- 
turning officers  were  required  to  take  an  oath  that  they  had  not 
been  bribed ;  if  they  had  been,  they  were  declared  guilty  of 
perjury,  and  were  rendered  forever  afterward  incapable  of 
voting  or  holding  office  or  franchise,  and  forfeited  the 
sum  of  five  hundred  pounds  as  well.  Offenders  were  indem- 
nified if  within  a  year  after  the  election  they  turned  king's 
evidence  against  a  person  who  had  taken  a  bribe.  Under 

'l  25  Geo.  II,  chap.  6,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  237. 

2  9  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  41 1. 

3  13  Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons,  400. 

4  Statutes  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  24;  9  Geo.  II,  chap.  38. 


IO/8  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

this  law  an  attempt  to  make  an  elector  promise  that  he 
would  refrain  from  voting  was  just  as  much  an  act  of  bribery 
as  was  an  attempt  to  influence  him  to  vote  in  any  particular 
way. 

§  15.  Sanction  of  the  Election  Laws.  Without  exception 
the  American  colonies  enforced  their  election  laws  by  means 
of  a  series  of  penal  sanctions.  The  crimes  punished  by 
these  provisions  were  numerous  and  included  any  neglect, 
omission,  or  failure  of  duty  upon  the  part  of  the  persons  or 
officers  intrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  election  laws. 
The  admission  of  the  vote  of  an  unqualified  person,  the  mak- 
ing of  a  false  return,  or  the  failure  to  make  any  return' at  all, 
were  some  of  the  offenses  which  rendered  a  sheriff  liable  to  a 
penalty.  On  the  part  of  an  elector,  illegal  voting,  fraud,  re- 
peating, the  putting  of  more  than  one  vote  into  a  ballot  box 
and  voting  for  a  candidate  known  to  be  unqualified,'  were 
among  the  crimes  reached  by  the  punitive  sanctions  of  these 
laws.2 

The  penalties  were  almost  always  of  a  pecuniary  nature,  and 
it  seems  unnecessary  to  go  into  the  subject  at  any  great  lerTgth. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  fines  ranged  in  amount  from  a  few 
shillings*  to  three  hundred  pounds  or  more.4  Usually  ster- 
ling was  meant,  but  in  some  instances,  in  the  more  southern 
colonies,  "current  money"1  or  "proclamation  money"6 

1  Massachusetts,  Laws,  ed.  1660,  25. 

2  North  Carolina,  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177.     It  is 
not  possible  to  give  references  to  all  provisions  relating  to  this  subject,  as  they  are 
contained  in  almost  every  statute  which  has  been  mentioned  in  this  work.     In 
the  laws  the  subject  was  treated  in  much  the  same  way  as  in  England.     The  index 
to  Troward,  Elections,  gives  a  list  of  the  various  offenses  which  were  punishable 
in  the  mother  country. 

3  Plymouth,  Laws,   1636,   II  Plymouth    Colony  Records,  10.     It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  fines  in  New  England  were  much  smaller  than  in  the  other  colonies. 

'New  Jersey,  12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laws,  69. 

5  Virginia,  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  2,  3  Hening,  236. 

6  North  Carolina,  17  Geo.  II,  chap.  I,  §  6,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


199 


were  specified  as  the  rates  at  which  the  payments  of  fines 
should  be  made.  In  Virginia,  and  also  in  Maryland,  the  fines 
were  usually  payable  in  kind,  ranging  in  quantity  from  one 
hundred1  to  thirty  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco.2  This  last 
penalty  was  imposed  by  the  Bacon  Assembly  upon  sheriffs 
making  false  returns.  Although  thirty  thousand  pounds  was 
an  extraordinarily  large  amount,  there  seems  to  have  been 
some  need  of  it,  for  more  than  twenty  years  before,  in  1676, 
an  assembly  had  found  it  necessary  to  inflict  a  fine  of  ten 
thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  upon  sheriffs  neglecting  their 
duty.3 

The  proceeds  of  these  fines  were  applied  to  a  great  variety 
of  uses.  As  a  general  rule  one-half  went  to  the  sovereign  for 
the  support  of  the  government/  or  in  the  proprietary  colonies 
to  the  lords  proprietors5  or  to  the  governor.6  In  many  cases 
the  other  moiety  went  to  the  person  informing  and  suing  for 
it.7  New  Jersey  divided  one  particular  fine  into  thirds,  giv- 
ing one  portion  to  the  king,  another  to  the  aggrieved  party, 
and  the  remaining  third  to  the  poor,8  while  Massachusetts 
assigned  one  moiety  to  the  poor  and  the  other  to  the  in- 
former.9 In  cases  of  bribery  in  South  Carolina  the  fines 
went  to  the  benefit  of  the  poor  of  the  parish.10 

In  Georgia  the  proceeds  of  fines  were  used  to  defray  the 
expense  incurred  by  the  sessions  of  the  general  assembly,11 

1  21  Car.  I,  Act  xx,  I  Hening,  333.      2  Bacon's  Laws,  Act  vii,  2  Hening,  356. 
3  5-6  Commonwealth,  Act  vii.  I  Hening,  411. 
*  Virginia,  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  236. 

5  South  Carolina,  Act  1704,  no.  227,  §  4,  2  Cooper,  249. 

6  Pennsylvania,  4  Anne,  chap.  1 29,  Franklin  ed.,  1 742,  67. 

7  Virginia,  4  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  236.     An  earlier  statute  gave  the  ag- 
grieved party  the  first  claim  on  the  second  moiety.     1 1  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hen- 
ing, 172. 

8  12  Geo.  I,  chap,  40,  §  2,  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 

9  Laws,  1 738-9,  chap.  26,  2  Ames  and  Goodell,  980. 

10  Act  1716,  no.  365,  §  23,  2  Cooper,  683.  u  Act  1761. 


2  00  HIST  OR  Y  OF  ELE  CTIONS 

while  the  neighboring  colony  of  South  Carolina  punished  a 
sheriff  guilty  of  an  untrue  return  by  making  him  forfeit  ten 
pounds  to  the  lords  proprietors  for  each  false  vote  and  a 
hundred  pounds  to  the  persons  who  should  have  been  re- 
turned.1 North  Carolina  applied  the  proceeds  of  penalties 
for  false  returns  towards  the  building  of  any  court  house, 
church  or  chapel  which  the  governor  should  designate.  If 
however,  no  such  building  was  needed,  then  the  lords  pro- 
prietors and  the  aggrieved  parties  were  the  beneficiaries.2 

The  method  to  be  employed  in  recovering  a  fine  was  not 
always  specifically  described.  When  an  informer  sued,  the 
form  of  action  was  stated  to  be  a  qui  tarn  action,  in  which  the 
plaintiff  described  himself  as  suing  for  the  commonwealth  as 
well  as  for  himself.3  Virginia  prescribed  the  means  of  re- 
covery to  be  "  with  full  costs  of  suit  by  action  of  debt,  byll, 
plaint,  or  information  in  any  court  of  record  in  his  majesties 
collony  and  dominion  wherein  noe  essoigne,  protection  or 
wager  of  law,  privilege  or  imparlance  shall  soe  be  admitted 
or  allowed."4  This  provision  was  modelled  upon  the  phrase 
which  appears  in  a  similar  connection  in  almost  all  the  Eng- 

1  Act  1704,  no.  227,  §  3,  2  Cooper,  249. 

2  Laws,  17,15,  2  North  .Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213. 

3  I  Salkeld,  J  29,  n;  I  Viner,  Abridgement,  197.     South  Carolina,  23  Geo.  II, 
no.  885,  4  Cooper,  98. 

*  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening,  172.  This  statute  contains  the  following  com- 
prehensive definition  of  a  violation  of  duty  on  the  part  of  an  election  officer : 

"  If  any  sheriff  or  his  officer,  before  the  returne  be  endorsed  on  the  writt,  shall 
deny  and  refuse  to  take  the  poll  in  writeing  as  aforesaid  if  it  be  demanded  by  any 
.  candidate  or  freeholder,  or  shall  refuse  to  give  copyes  of  the  poll  to  such  candi- 
date or  candidates,  if  by  them  required,  or  shall  neglect  to  give  legall  notice  of  the 
election  time  and  place  of  election,  or  shall  make  a  false  or  double  returne  of  those 
who  are  not  duly  elected  burgesses  as  aforesaid,  or  who  shall  not  make  any  re- 
turn, or  shall  make  returne  in  any  forme  then  is  herein  expressed,  he  or  they 
so  offending  in  any  one  or  the  premises,  and  being  thereof  lawfully  convicted, 
shall  for  every  such  offense  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  fforty  pounds  sterling 
money." 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2OI 

lish  statutes  passed  during  the  colonial  period.  The  only 
difference  was  that  in  the  mother  country  the  courts  of  record 
were  limited  to  those  at  Westminster  Hall,  and  one  impar- 
lance  was  sometimes  permitted.1  In  nearly  all  the  colonies 
the  method  of  recovery  was  by  "  bill,  plaint  or  information."2 

In  actions  for  recovery  of  penalties  for  illegal  voting,  two 
colonies  placed  the  onus  probandi  on  the  defendant.3  Rhode 
Island  enacted  that  certain  fines  incurred  by  towns  were  to  be 
recovered  by  an  action  on  the  case  brought  by  the  treasurer 
and  the  proceeds  devoted  to  the  use  of  the  colony.4  Other 
fines  were  levied  by  warrant  of  distress.5  Delaware  enforced 
judgments  against  persons  incurring  fines  of  twenty  shillings 
for  making  a  second  attempt  to  vote,  by  seizing  their  goods, 
or  in  case  they  had  none,  by  putting  them  in  gaol  until  the 
judgment  was  satisfied.6 

Besides  the  punishments  inflicted  on  persons  convicted  of 
bribery,  which  have  been  enumerated  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tion7 there  were  several  instances,  where  the  penal  sanctions 
of  the  election  laws  amounted  to  more  than  a  fine,  and  in- 
volved physical  punishment  of'some  sort.  These  sanctions, 
however,  applied  to  delinquent  electors  rather  than  to  offend- 
ing officials. 

Rhode  Island  with  her  usual  severity  did  not  spare  voters 
guilty  of  fraud.  They  were  at  first  liable  to  a  fine  of  five 
pounds  or  twenty-one  stripes  upon  their  naked  backs,  or  im- 

1  See,  for  example,  Statutes  I  Geo.  I,  Stat.  2,  chap.  56:  6  Anne,  chap.  7;  7  and  8 
Will.  Ill,  chap.  25;  12  and  13  Will.  Ill,  chap.  10. 

3  For  example,  Massachusetts  Bay :  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  88 ;  Pennsylvania :  25 
Geo.  II,  chap.  6,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  237;  Delaware :  Adams  ed.,  1797,  429; 
Maryland:  8  Geo.  I,  Baskett  ed,  1723,  121;  North  Carolina:  Laws,  1715,  2  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  213;  Georgia:  Act  1761. 

3  Virginia:  3  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §  7,  7  Hening, 519;  North  Carolina:  17 Geo.  II, 
chap.  I,  §  7,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  177. 

*  6  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  323.     5  12  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  .1744,  217. 

6  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  207,  §  6,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  500.       7  See  p.  192  etseq.,ante. 


2Q2  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

prisonment  for  a  month.1  The -penalty  was  soon  increased 
to  forty  stripes  or  imprisonment  in  the  stocks,  and  conviction 
was  secured  upon  confession  or  upon  the  testimony  of  two 
witnesses  that  the  voter  had  put  more  than  one  paper  in  the 
hat.  The  governor  and  council  could  inflict  these  punish- 
ments at  the  general  court  of  election,  but  the  assistant 
justices  and  wardens  had  jurisdiction  at  town  or  quarter 
meetings.  The  latter  officers  could  not  subject  an  offender 
to  a  fine  of  more  than  forty  shillings  or  to  more  than  twenty- 
one  stripes.  They  could,  however,  set  him  in  the  stocks.2 
In  1739  the  penalty  for  putting  in  more  than  one  ballot  was 
a  fine  of  forty  shillings  with  disfranchisement  for  three  years.3 
South  Carolina  punished  persons  voting  illegally  by  six 
months'  imprisonment  without  bail.4  In  default  of  payment 
of  a  fine  imposed  on  conviction  for  an  attempt  to  illegally 
influence  a  voter,  Georgia  provided  for  imprisonment  with- 
out bail  or  mainprize.5 

1  4  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  195.  2  Ibid.,  207. 

3  12  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  217.       4  Act  1/04,  no.  227,  §  6, 2  Cooper,  249. 

5  Act  1761. 


PART  II.— LOCAL  ELECTIONS. 


CHAPTER  I.     HISTORY  OF  LOCAL  ELECTIONS. 

Under  the  subject  of  general  elections  it  has  been  found 
expedient  to  touch  upon  the  manner  of  choosing  some  of 
those  colonial  officers  whose  functions  were  local  rather  than 
general  in  character.  Such  for  example  were  the  associates 
in  Plymouth,  and  the  sheriffs,  coroners,  commissioners  and 
assessors  in  Pennsylvania,  whose  duties  were  confined  to  the 
county  in  which  they  were  elected.  The  reason  for  treating 
these  officers  in  that  connection  was  that  they  were  chosen 
by  persons  possessing  the  county  franchise  rather  than  the 
town  franchise,  and  also  because  in  the  latter  colony  they 
were  voted  for  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  the  members 
of  the  legislature.  In  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  the  in- 
spectors were  essentially  local  officials  chosen  by  the  hun- 
dreds of  each  county ;  but  their  duties  were  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  management  of  general  elections  that  it 
was  deemed  advisable  to  consider  them  in  that  connection. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  give  the  subject  of  local  elections 
a  treatment  so  exhaustive  as  has  been  bestowed  on  those  at 
which  the  general  officers  of  the  colonies  were  chosen.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  although  the  various  town,  vestry, 
manor,  city  and  borough  elections  were  to  some  extent  gov- 
erned by  statutes  general  in  their  nature,  it  is  none  the  less 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  each  locality  followed  its  own 
judgment  in  regard  to  matters  of  detail.  To  engage  in  a 
thorough  investigation  of  the  subject  would,  therefore,  ne- 


2O4 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


cessitate  greater  labor  and  more  extended  research  than  is  at 
present  within  the  power  of  the  writer.  Accordingly,  in  the 
following  pages  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  give  more  than  a 
rough  sketch  of  the  methods  of  conducting  local  elections, 
as  laid  down  by  statutes  of  general  import.  This  will  be 
done  in  the  hope  of  furnishing  a  basis  of  comparison  with 
the  system  of  choosing  general  officers,  rather  than  with  a 
view  of  exhausting  the  subject.  Neither  has  it  been  thought 
necessary  to  consider  in  detail  the  subject  of  military  elec- 
tions, in  which  the  citizens  at  large  had  sometimes  a  voice. 
For  example,  in  Massachusetts  an  order  of  the  general  court 
gave  all  the  freemen  of  the  colony  a  vote  in  the  election  of 
the  officers  of  the  trainbands.1  This  proves  that  the  suffrage 
for  military  officers  was  not  always  restricted  to  enlisted 
men.2  Outside  of  the  Puritan  colonies  the  officers  of  the 
militia  were  generally  appointed,  and  when  they  were  elected 
it  was  probably  by  the  soldiers  themselves. 

§  i .  Town  Elections.  It  may  perhaps  be  stated  as  a  gen- 
eral proposition,  that  so  far  as  the  election  of  local  officers  is 
concerned,  the  New  England  town  of  to-day  does  not  differ 
very  much  from  its  predecessor  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  From  the  earliest  times  the  more  im- 
portant town  officers  have  been  elective,  and  that  by  a  popular 
suffrage. 

Thus,  for  example,  an  early  enactment  of  the  general 
court  of  Plymouth  required  "  constables  for  each  part  and 
other  infefiour  officers  "  to  be  chosen  annually  by  the  free- 
men.8 A  law  passed  in  1658  would  seem  to  indicate  that 

1  1647,  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  191. 

2  See  also  Plymouth  Laws,  1667,  Brigham,  151 ;  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records, 
98,  121 ;  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  no;  I    Connecticut  Colonial  Records, 
409;  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  655. 

3  Laws,  1636,  ii  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  7;  Brigham,  37. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


205 


the  town  officials  had  to  be  confirmed  by  the  general  court.-1 
An  order  of  1652  commanded  that  "in  every  town  three  or 
five  Celectmen  be  chosen  by  the  Townsmen  out  of  the  free- 
men such  as  shalbee  approved  by  the  court  for  the  better."2 
In  Massachusetts  by  an  order  of  1635-6  the  towns  were 
given  power  to  elect  their  own  officers,  such  as  selectmen, 
surveyors  for  the  highways,  constables,  etc?  Under  the 
charter  of  1691  the  inhabitants  of  the  towns  were  called  to- 
gether annually  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  town  clerk  and 
three,  five,  seven  or  nine  selectmen.4  After  i/oo  a  treasurer 
was  also  chosen  by  each  town,"  though  before  that  time  a 
treasurer  was  elected  for  each  county  by  the  votes  of  those 
possessing  the  town  suffrage.6  The  first  provincial  legisla- 
ture of  New  Hampshire  passed  a  law  providing  that  an  an- 
nual meeting  should  be  held  in  each  town  for  the  election  of 
constables,  selectmen,  jurors  and  other  officers.7 

The  towns  of  Rhode  Island  elected  a  large  number  of 
local  officers,  including  among  others  a  town  council.8  In 
the  four  towns  of  that  colony  which  had  first  been  settled,  the 
chief  judicial  officer  was  one  of  the  assistants,  and  as  such 

1 "  Other  inferiour  officers,  as  constables,  grandjurymen  and  surveyors  for  the 
highwaies,  bee  then  also  confeirmed,  if  approved  by  the  Court."  Laws,  1658, 
Brigham,  109. 

•Laws,  1662,  Brigham,  138.  See  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  Brigham  260, 
264,  for  provisions  concerning  the  annual  elections  of  selectmen  and  constables. 

3  I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  172;  Coffin,  History  of  Newbury,  19.  The 
maximum  number  of  selectmen  appears  to  have  been  nine.  Laws,  ed.  1660,  76; 
ed.  1814,  195. 

*  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  28,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  65. 

5  Laws,  1699-1700,  chap.  2,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  385. 

6  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  27,  §  i,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  63. 

7 1680,  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396,  403.  This  statute  was  re- 
pealed, but  later  re-enacted  in  substance.  5  Geo.  I,  chap.  88,  Fowle  ed.  1761,  34, 
201,  213;  ed.  1771,  137.  Ministers  were  also  elected;  ed.  1771,  155. 

8  18  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  9. 


•2o6  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

was,  of  course,  chosen  at  the  general  court  of  election.1  The 
act  under  which  Block  Island  was  incorporated,  in  1672, 
gave  the  freemen  of  that  corporation  power  to  elect  wardens 
and  a  "  sargent."2  The  charter  of  Providence,  in  1649,  gave 
full  power  to  the  inhabitants  to  rule  themselves  and  elect 
officers  of  justice  on  the  first  second  day  of  June  in  each 
year.3 

In  the  New  Haven  colony  we  find  that  the  Fundamental 
Orders  of  1643  provided  for  the  election  of  as  many  magis- 
trates as  were  necessary  for  each  plantation.4  As  early  as 
1636  constables  were  sworn  in  Newton  to  act  till  "  newe  be 
chosen,"  so  that  it  seems  reasonable  to  assume  that  even  at 
that  early  date  local  officers  were  elected  in  the  Hartford 
colony.0  Under  the  Connecticut  charter  each  town  chose 
annually  not  more  than  "  seven  selectmen,  one  town  clerk, 
constables,  surveyors  of  highways,  fence  viewers,  listers,  col- 
lectors of  rates,  leather  sealers,  haywards,  inspectors,  chimney 
viewers,  and  other  ordinary  town  officers."8  Among  the 
latter  were  packers  of  beef,  pork  and  other  goods,  clerks  of 
trainbands,  gagers,  sealers  of  measures,  branders,  appraisers 
and  so  forth.' 

The  New  England  colonies  were  included  with  New  York 
in  the  "  Dominion  "  ruled  by  Andros  from  1687  until  his  im- 
prisonment in  i689.8  Under  this  government  the  only  offi- 
cers elected  by  the  people  were  local  in  character.  Each 
town  was  permitted  to  meet  but  once  a  year  for  the  purpose 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  148,  401. 

2  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  466. 

3  I  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records>  214.     4  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  113. 
5  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  i.     6  Connecticut,  Session  Laws,  ed.  1715,  113. 

7  Ibid,  go,  91,  ed.  1750,  54,  69,  240.     The  reader  will  find  in  I   Howard,  Local 
Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  78-99,  a  list  of  the  town  officers  that 
were  elected  in  Massachusetts. 

8  For  his  commission,  see  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  544. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2O/ 

of  choosing  its  own  officers,  and  among  them  were  a  com- 
missioner, constable  and  four  selectmen.  The  latter  held 
office  for  two  years,  half  of  the  number  going  out  of  office 
each  year.1  That  the  custom  of  annually  electing  their  town 
officers  was  regarded  by  New  Englanders  as  essential  to 
their  welfare  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  a  little  colony  of  Puri- 
tans on  the  coast  of  Georgia  elected  their  selectmen  and 
other  officers  regularly  each  year.2 

In  the  Dutch  towns  of  New  Netherland  there  existed  a 
system  of  local  elections  similar  to  those  which  had  long 
flourished  in  Holland.  A  petition  from  the  Eight  to  the 
Nineteen  of  the  Amsterdam  Chamber,  in  1644,  stated  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  rural  districts  to  be  cultivated 
unless  the  people  were  permitted  to  "  elect  from  among 
themselves  a  Bailiff  or  Schout  and  Shepens,  who  will  be  em- 
powered to  send  their  deputies  and  give  their  votes  in  public 
affairs  with  the  Director  and  Council.""  The  charter  of 
Flushing,  issued  the  following  year,  granted  that  town  the 
right  to  "  Nominate,  Elect  and  Choose  a  certain  officer  over 
them,  who  may  bear  the  name  or  Title  of  Scout  or  Constable 
of  fflushing."4  Gravesend,  by  a  charter  granted  at  about  the 
same  time,  was  allowed  to  elect  three  magistrates  and  a 
schout  subject,  however,  to  confirmation  by  the  governor.5, 
Other  towns  followed  the  custom,  already  referred  to,  of 
electing  a  double  or  triple  number  of  magistrates,  from  which 
the  Director  appointed  one."  The  reply  of  Governor  Stuy- 
vesant  to  the  convention  of  1653  justifies  the  inference  that 
the  English  towns  on  Long  Island  elected  their  magistrates 
without  presenting  them  to  him  for  confirmation.7  During 

1  Ordinance  of  Council,  3  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  427. 

2  I  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  380.      3  I  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  213. 
4  O'Callaghan,  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherland,  49.  5  Ibid.,  55. 

6  I  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  393. 

'  See  2  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  250. 


2  o8  HIS  T°R  y  °F  ELE  C  TIONS 

the  second  Dutch  occupation,  in  1673,  we  find  that  the 
council  of  war  sent  orders  to  a  number  of  towns,  both  in 
New  York  and  New  Jersey,  requiring  them  to  elect  and  re- 
turn a  double  number  of  schouts  and  schepens,  from  whom 
the  council  should  appoint  the  magistrates.1 

The  Duke's  Laws,  under  which  for  a  time  New  York  and 
parts  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  were  administered,  pro- 
vided that  "  all  votes  in  the  private  affairs  of  particular  towns 
should  be  given  and  Determined  by  the  Inhabitants,  Free- 
holders, Householders."2  Under  this  code  eighteen  overseers 
were  chosen  by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  of  each  town. 
The  terms  of  four  of  these  expired  each  year,  their  places 
being  filled  by  popular  vote.  From  the  outgoing  overseers 
the  freeholders  elected  a  constable  and  returned  him  to  the 
justices  for  confirmation.3  In  1666  the  number  of  overseers 
in  each  town  was  reduced  to  four,  and  the  freeholders  were 
ordered  to  meet  in  their  towns,  and  dismiss  by  vote  two  of 
the  new  overseers  chosen  that  year,  as  well  as  two  of  the 
overseers  that  had  held  office  during  the  previous  year.4 

The  Monmouth  patent,  issued  by  Governor  Nicolls  in 
1665,  empowered  the  inhabitants  of  that  town  to  elect  their 
local  officers.5  In  the  more  southern  portion  of  the  Duke's 
dominions  we  find  that  in  1672  Newcastle  was  incorporated 
as  a  "  Balywick."  The  first  officers  were  appointed,  but 
thereafter  a  high  sheriff  and  bailiff  were  to  be  elected  annu- 
ally. The  method  of  selection  was  the  double  nomination, 
two  candidates  being  chosen  by  the  people,  and  from  these 
the  governor  appointed  one.  Four  assistants  might  also  be 

12  New   York  Colonial  Documents,  574,  577,  579,  580,  586;  I  New  Jersey 
Archives,  125  etseq. 

2  Title,  Votes,  page  22.      The  code  is  published  in  the   Charters  and  Laws,  re- 
printed by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  Harrisburg,  1879. 

3  Title,  Overseers,  ibid.,  44.  *  Ibid.,  68. 
5  I  New  Jersey  Archives,  45. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


209 


chosen  annually.1  During  the  proprietorship  of  the  Duke, 
as  well  as  afterward,  many  towns  received  charters  or  patents 
giving  them  the  power  of  electing  officers. 

The  Duke's  Laws  gradually  went  out  of  use,  but  it  was  not 
until  after  1690  that  they  became  a  dead  letter  in  New  York. 
The  writer  is  unable  to  say  how  far,  during  the  period  they 
were  in  force,  the  towns  availed  themselves  of  the  privilege  of 
electing  their  own  officers.  We  shall  see  that  in  Pennsylva- 
nia and  Delaware,  except  in  the  incorporated  settlements,  no 
general  system  of  local  elections  was  introduced  until  just 
before  the  Revolution.  New  Jersey  began  to  develop  local 
elections  much  earlier  than  her  southern  neighbors,  but  out- 
side of  New  England  the  honor  of  developing  them  into  a 
permanent  system  belongs  to  the  province  of  New  York. 

In  1691  the  New  York  assembly  passed  a  law  command- 
ing the  freeholders  of  every  town  to  meet  annually  at  the 
times  expressed  in  their  patents.  At  such  meetings  they 
were  to  choose  three  persons  to  be  surveyors  and  "  Ordrers 
of  the  Work  for  laying  out  and  the  amendment  of  the  High- 
ways and  Fences,"  according  to  the  rules  to  be  prescribed  by 
the  freeholders.2  But  the  indefinite  language  of  the  preceding 
act  was  the  cause  of  numerous  mistakes,  and  in  1703  another 
statute  required  each  town  to  elect  annually  a  person  to 
"  compute,  ascertain,  examine,  oversee  and  allow  the  contin- 
gent, publick  and  necessary  Charge  of  each  County."  This 
officer  was  called  a  supervisor,  and  in  electing  him  each  in- 
habitant of  a  manor,  liberty,  jurisdiction,  precinct  and  plan- 
tation was  given  power  to  join  his  vote  with  those  of  the 
next  adjacent  town.  The  "  Manner  of  Ranslaerswick"  was 
excluded  from  this  last  provision,  and  was  permitted  to 
choose  a  separate  supervisor.  In  addition  each  town,  manor, 
or  precinct  was  authorized  to  choose  two  assessors  and  one 

1  1 2  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  496. 

2  3  Will,  and  Mary,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  3. 


2  i  o  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

collector.  Vacancies  were  filled  at  special  elections,  and  in 
case  of  failure  or  refusal  to  elect,  power  of  appointment  was 
vested  in  the  justices  of  the  peace.1  This  was  generally  the 
rule  with  the  middle  colonies.  A  later  act  authorized  the 
choice  of  special  officers  for  the  collection  of  quit-rents.2 
Subsequent  changes  in  these  statutes  affected  only  the  num- 
ber of  officers  to  be  chosen,  and  the  dates  when  elections 
were  to  be  held;' 

The  manor  of  Rensselaerwyck  was  from  the  beginning 
treated  as  if  it  were  a  town.  It  was  permitted  to  choose 
officers  with  the  same  names  and  duties  as  those  of  the 
towns,  and  in  addition  overseers  of  ovens  and  chimneys.4  In 
the  course  of  time  similar  privileges  were  extended  to  the 
manors  of  Livingston5  and  Cortlandt.6  In  early  times  the 
duties  of  an  overseer  of  the  poor  were  performed  by  the 
church  wardens.  It  was  not  until  1773  that  a  law  was 
enacted  providing  that  overseers  of  the  poor  might  be  chosen 
in  every  town,  manor  or  precinct  where  there  was  no  estab- 
lished vestry.' 

In  New  Jersey,  by  a  statute  of  7  Anne,  town  or  precinct 
meetings  were  authorized  to  be  held  for  the  purpose  of  choos- 
ing overseers  and  assessors  of  the  poor."  In  1730  it  was  or- 
dered that  an  assessor  and  a  collector  should  be  chosen 
annually  by  the  voters  of  every  town,  division,  precinct  and 
district.9  In  default  of  an  election,  the  justices  of  the  peace 
could  appoint  to  these  offices.  Just  before  the  Revolution  it 
was  provided  that  not  more  than  four  overseers  of  the  poor 

1 2  Anne,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  541.     •  2  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  404. 

3  See  13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1621,  Van  Schaack's  Laws. 

4  4  Anne,  chap.  151,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  67;   also  70,  545,  568,  689,  etc. 

5  3  Geo.  I,  chap.  323,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  106. 

6  II  Geo.  II,  chap.  651,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  192. 
7 13  Geo.  Ill,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  756. 

8  7  Anne,  chap.  6,  Nevill's  Laws,  9.      s  3  Geo.  I,  chap.  22.  Nevill's  Laws,  44. 


IN  THE  A M 'ERIC 'AN  COLONIES.  211 

should  be  chosen  at  the  annual  town  meetings  throughout 
the  colony,  and  that- vacancies  might  be  filled  by  special 
elections.1  In  1730  the  election  of  four  persons  from  among 
whom  the  justices  of  the  peace  should  select  two  to  be  sur- 
veyors of  highways,  was  authorized.2  In  addition  to  the 
officials  just  mentioned,  every  New  Jersey  town  elected  two 
"  chosen  freeholders."  It  seems  to  have  been  the  duty  of 
these  persons  to  aid  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  deciding 
about  the  building  of  goals  and  court  houses,  and  in  certain 
other  administrative  matters.3 

Besides  these  elections  we  find  in  New  Jersey  two  in- 
stances in  which  a  locality  voted  upon  a  formal  proposition 
in  a  manner  resembling  somewhat  the  Rhode  Island  referen- 
dum* In  two  counties  the  court  houses  had  been  burned, 
and  in  order  to  decide  where  new  ones  should  be  erected, 
special  elections  were  held.  The  justices  of  the  peace  were 
ordered  with  the  aid  of  the  chosen  freeholders  to  draw  up 
advertisements  and  have  them  posted  in  the  most  public 
place  in  every  township.  The  purpose  of  these  was  to  sum- 
mon all  persons  who  were  properly  qualified  to  vote  for  rep- 
resentatives, to  meet  on  the  site  of  the  old  court  house.  The 
meeting  must  take  place  within  forty  days  after  the  adver- 
tisements were  posted,  provided  twenty  days'  notice  was 
given.  On  the  day  appointed  the  justices  took  the  votes 
and  the  chosen  freeholders  acted  as  judges.  The  poll  could 
be  adjourned  from  day  to  day  for  three  days,  until  all  those 
attending  had  voted.  Then  the  justices  added  up  the  totals 
and  the  new  court  house  was  erected  in  the  place  in  favor  of 
which  the  majority  of  votes  had  been  cast.5 

1  14  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws,  408.     *  3  Geo.  I,  chap.  23,  Nevill's  Laws,  48. 

3 12  and  13  Anne,  chap.  17,  Nevill's  Laws,  32.  For  other  functions  see  7  Geo. 
II,  chap.  108,  Nevill's  Laws,  216.  *  See  p.  10,  ante. 

5  Monmouth  County,  4  Geo.  II,  chap.  54;  Somerset  County,  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap. 
62;  Nevill's  Laws,  200,  247. 


2  1 2  HIS  TORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

In  1725  it  was  enacted  in  Pennsylvania  that  three  com- 
missioners should  be  chbsen  for  each  county.  One  of  these 
went  out  of  office  each  year  and  his  successor  was  chosen  at 
the  regular  elections  for  the  assembly.  After  1718  six  as- 
sessors were  chosen  at  the  same  election.1  For  a  long  period 
in  the  history  of  that  province  the  only  local  officers  chosen 
by  popular  vote  besides  the  inspectors,  were  the  pound 
keepers.2  All  the  other  town  officers  appear  to  have 
been  appointed,  and  it  was  not  until  1772  that  the  voters 
of  every  town  in  the  province  were  authorized  to  choose  two 
supervisors  of  highways.3  In  1771  provision  had  been  made 
for  the  annual  election  in  each  town  of  a  board  of  three  free- 
holders whose  duty  it  was  to  "  settle"  the  books  of  the  over- 
seers.4 After  the  following  year  a  board  of  four  auditors  was 
chosen  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the  supervisors.3 

In  Delaware  almost  all  the  local  officers  were  appointed, 
and  with  the  exception  of  sheriffs,  coroners  and  inpectors, 
the  only  elected  officers  were  the  assessors.  At  first  these 
were  chosen  at  the  county  elections  for  assemblymen,"  but 
after  1766  on  the  day  appointed  for  choosing  inspectors,7  an 
assessor  was  elected  in  each  hundred.  In  the  southern  col- 
onies the  only  local  officers  subject  to  election  by  popular 
suffrage  were,  if  we  except  the  vestrymen  and  wardens,  the 
constables  provided  for  by  Locke's  Constitution.8 

§  2.  Parish  Elections.  The  parish  was  primarily  an  Eng- 
lish institution,  and  existed  only  in  those  colonies  where  there 

1 4  Geo  I,  chap.  213,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  156;    n  Geo.  I,  chap.  3,  Hall  and  Sel- 
lers ed.,  1775,  131.     See  p.  170,  ante. 

2  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  149. 

3  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  444, 

4  ii  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  18,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  404. 

5  12  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  15,  §  15,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  444. 
6i6  Geo.  II,  Franklin  and  Hall  ed.,  1752,  231. 

7  Adams  ed.,  1797,429.     8Art.  91,  i  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  199. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


213 


was  an  established  church.  On  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
the  parish  had  its  secular  as  well  as  religious  side,  and  as  the 
smallest  governmental  division  its  affairs  were  administered 
by  a  vestry  whose  functions  were  somewhat  analogous  to 
those  of  the  New  England  selectmen.1  The  writer  has 
found  no  trace  of  a  vestry  outside  of  New  York,  Maryland, 
Virginia  and  the  two  Carolinas.  It  may  be  stated  as  a  gen- 
eral rule  that  in  each  parish  ministers  were  chosen  by  the 
vestry  and  that  they  became  ex-officio  members  of  that 
board.  Sometimes  the  wardens  were  elected  by  popular 
vote,  but  usually  this  was  done  by  the  vestry. 

By  the  statute  of  4  William  and  Mary,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  established  in  the  city  of  New  York  and  in  the 
counties  of  Richmond,  Westchester  and  Queens.  Two 
churchwardens  and  ten  vestrymen  were  elected  every  year 
by  the  freeholders  of  these  districts.'2  After  1746  each 
of  the  seven  wards  in  New  York  city  chose  two  vestrymen, 
and  the  membership  of  the  board  was  thus  increased  to  four- 
teen.8 

Maryland  received  her  establishment  in  the  same  year  as 
New  York.*  A  subsequent  statute  fixed  the  number  of  the 
vestry  at  six  and  made  the  minister,  if  he  was  worth  forty 
pounds,  a  member  of  the  board.  Two  wardens  were  chosen 
annually  by  the  vestry  and  the  freeholders.  Two  members  of 
the  vestry  went  out  of  office  each  year,  their  successors  be- 
ing chosen  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  parish.  The  vestry 
could  remove  a  member  after  giving  him  personal  notice,  or, 
if  he  was  out  of  reach,  by  affixing  a  public  notice  to  the 
great  door  of  the  church  for  three  successive  Sundays.  All 
vacancies  were,  however,  filled  at  special  meetings  of  the 

1  See  on  the    general  subject,  i    Howard,  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the 
United  States,  117  et  sey. 

2  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  19.  3 19  Geo.  II,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  267. 
4  4  Will,  and  Mary,  chap.  2,  Bacon's  Laws. 


214 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


freeholders  called  for  the  purpose.1  In  no  province  was 
there  wider  popular  control  over  the  vestry  than  in  Mary- 
land. 

Continuing  in  geographical  order,  we  find  that  a  statute 
enacted  by  Virginia  in  1643,  indicates  that  church  wardens 
were  annually  elected  and  the  vestrymen  were  appointed.2 
In  the  following  year,  however,  it  was  definitely  stated  that 
the  vestry  should  be  elected  by  the  voices  of  the  majority  of 
the  parishioners  who  attended  the  annual  meeting.3  In  1661 
the  number  of  vestrymen  was  limited  to  twelve,4  but  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  the  minister  and  vestrymen  were  given  the  power 
of  choosing  wardens  and  of  filling  vacancies  in  their  own 
number.5  The  vestry  thus  became  self-renewing  and,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  a  close  corporation.  That  this  change 
was  not' favorably  received  is  shown  by  the  action  of  Bacon's 
legislature  in  1676.  This  body  complained  of  the  evils  that 
arose  from  the  long  continuance  of  vestries,  and  with  a 
view  of  reforming  the  abuse,  passed  a  law  providing  that 
once  every  three  years  twelve  vestrymen  should  be  elected 
by  the  votes  of  the  freeholders  and  freemen  of  each  parish.6 

The  course  of  development  in  North  Carolina  was  pre- 
cisely the  reverse  of  that  in  Virginia.  At  first  the  ves- 
try was  a  close  corporation,7  but  after  1741  twelve  vestry- 
men were  elected  for  terms  of  two  years  by  the  freeholders 
of  each  parish.8  After  1765  vestry  elections  were  held  at  in- 
tervals of  three  years.9  The  wardens  were,  however,  chosen 

1  I  Anne,  chap.  I,  Bacon's  Laws;   Act  no.  5,  Basket!  ed.,  1723,  13. 

2 18  Car.  I,  Act  i,  I  Hening,  240.  3 19  Car.  I,  Act.  v,  I  Hening,  290. 

4 13  Car.  II.,  Act  xxi,  2  Hening,  25.  5  14  Car.  II,  Act  ii,  2  Hening,  44. 

6  Bacon's  Laws,  Act.  vi,  2  Hening,  356. 

7  Laivs,  1715,  2  Arorth  Carolina   Colonial  Records,  206. 
8 14  Geo.  II,  chap.  23,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  157. 
9  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  305. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


215 


by  the  vestrymen,  who  also  had  power  to  fill  vacancies  until 
the  next  election. 

The  English  church  was  established  in  South  Carolina  in 
1704.  The  first  elections  were  held  the  following  year,  two 
wardens  and  nine  vestrymen,  being  chosen  in  each  parish. 
Vacancies  were  filled  at  special  elections  called  with  all  con- 
venient speed.1  A  subsequent  act  reduced  the  membership 
of  the  vestry  to  seven  and  gave  the  rector  a  seat  in  the  board.3 
The  rector  of  a  parish  was  chosen  by  a  majority  vote  of  its 
inhabitants,  and  commissioners  were  given  power  to  hear 
and  settle  disputed  elections:1  After  1712  vacancies  among 
the  wardens  were  filled  by  the  vestry.4 

In  Connecticut  a  system  of  parish  or  church  society  elec- 
tions flourished.  In  these  a  clerk  and  committee  were  an- 
nually chosen  by  the  settled  inhabitants  of  each  parish.5 
Ministers  were  also  chosen  at  these  meetings.6  Moreover,  a 
method  was  provided  by  statute  for  the  organization  of  new 
societies  after  other  societies  had  been  drawn  off  from  them.7 

§  3.  Municipal  Elections.  So  far  as  the  writer  has  been 
able  to  ascertain,  the  only  cities  which  elected  their  own  offi- 
cers were  New  York  and  Albany.  Philadelphia  was  a  close 
corporation.  In  its  charter  the  first  set  of  aldermen  and 
councilmen  were  named  and  it  empowered  them  to  appoint 
the  mayor  and  select  their  own  successors.8  The  coroner 

1  Acts  1704,  no.  225,  §§  21,  22,  27;  no.  241,  2  Cooper,  242,  259. 
'l  Act  1706,  no.  256,  §  29,  2  Cooper,  287. 

3  Acts  1704,  no.  225,  §  14;    1706,  no.  256,  §  21;  1712,  no.  307;   2  Cooper,  236, 
287,  366. 

4  Act  1712,  no.  307,  §  7,  2  Cooper,  366. 

5  4  Geo.  I,  6  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  33;   Session  Laws,  231. 

6  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  33,  7  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  211 ;   Session  Laws,  362. 

7  13  Geo.  I,  7  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  74,  Session  Laws,  335;   2  Geo.  II, 
chap,  41,  Session  Laws,  366;   9  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  218. 

8  Pennsylvania  Laws,  Miller  ed.,  1762,  10,  n. 


2  1 6  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

and  the  sheriff  were  the  only  officers  elected  by  the  people, 
but  this  was  done  by  virtue  of  their  capacity  as  a  county,  and 
in  this  particular  their  action  differed  in  no  respect  from  that 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  counties.1  After  1771  the 
freeholders  of  Philadelphia  annually  elected  two  wardens.2 

As  has  been  already  seen,3  the  smaller  Dutch  towns  pos- 
sessed the  privilege  of  electing  their  officers,  though  their 
choice  was  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Director  General. 
New  Amsterdam  had  not  been  granted  this  privilege,  al- 
though- it  had  been  demanded  in  1642  and  again  in  1649.* 
At  last,  in  1652,  Director  Stuyvesant  was  instructed  to  have 
a  schout,  two  burgomasters  and  five  schepens  "  elected 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  metropolis  of  Fatherland." 
He,  however,  continued  for  a  long  time  to  appoint  municipal 
officers,  and  when  a  protest  was  made  he  replied  that  he  had 
done  so  "  for  momentous  reasons."  "  For,  if,"  he  said, 
"  this  rule  was  to  become  a  cynosure,  if  the  nomination  and 
election  of  magistrates  were  to  be  left  to  the  populace  who 
were  the  most  interested,  then  each  would  vote  for  some  one 
of  his  own  stamp,  the  thief  for  a  thief,  the  rogue,  the  tippler, 
the  smuggler,  for  a  brother  in  iniquity,  that  he  might  enjoy 
greater  latitude  in  his  vices  and  frauds."  The  magistrates 
had  not  been  appointed  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  people, 
because  they  were  "  proposed  to  the  commonalty  in  front  of 
the  City  Hall  by  their  names  and  surnames,  each  in  his 
quality,  before  they  were  admitted  or  sworn  to  office.  The 
question  is  then  put,  does  any  one  object?"0  Finally,  in 
1658  Stuyvesant  allowed  the  burgomasters  and  schepens 

1  See  Penn's  Charter  of  Privileges;  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444. 

2 II  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  19,  §  17,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  417.     3  See  p.  207,  ante. 

4 1  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  193;  I  Brodhead,  History  State  of 
New  York,  540. 

5  2  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Nelherland,  192,  213,  250,  311,  312;  I  Brod- 
head, History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  540,  548. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  2IJ 

to  nominate  their  successors,  but  the  city  did  not  have  a 
schout  of  its  own  till  1660.' 

,  By  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1664,  the  inferior 
civil  officers  and  magistrates  in  New  York  were  to  hold  until 
their  successors  were  elected  or  appointed.2  In  1665  Gov- 
ernor Nicolls  appointed  the  first  mayor.3  During  the 
second  Dutch  occupation,  when  the  city  was  called  New 
Orange,  a  double  number  of  magistrates  were  elected  by  the 
people  and  presented  to  the  governor  for  appointment.4  In 
1686  the  Dongan  charter  gave  the  lieutenant  governor  the 
power  of  appointing  the  mayor  and  sheriff  of  New  York  city, 
but  an  alderman,  an  assistant  and  a  constable  were  to  be 
chosen  for  each  ward  by  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
ward.5  During  his  short  lease  of  power  Leisler  issued  war- 
rants for  the  election  of  the  mayor  and  sheriff  by  "  all  Pro- 
testant freeholders."  The  resulting  election  was  a  farce,  as 
only  seventy  of  the  inhabitants  voted.  The  illegality  of  this 
action  in  defiance  of  the  provisions  of  the  Dongan  charter 
was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  complaint  against  Leisler.6 
The  Montgomery  charter,  granted  to  New  York  in  I73O,7 
authorized  the  election  of  one  alderman,  an  assistant,  two 
assessors,  one  collector  and  two  constables  in  each  ward.8 

The  charter  of  Albany  was  granted  by  Governor  Dongan 
in  1686,  and  it  resembled  in  many  respects  the  instrument 

1  2  O'Callaghan,  History  ofA'ew  Netherland,  370. 

2  Art.  1 6,  2  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  534. 

3  2  Brodhead,  History  of  the  Slate  of  New  York,  212. 

4  See  the  Provisional  Instructions  for  the  Schout,  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  of 
New  Orange,  2  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  680. 

5  Manual 'of 'the  Common  Council  of  New  York,  1868,  7,9. 

6  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  645,  655,  675;   2  Brodhead,  History  of  tfie 
State  of  New  York,  578,  9.  74  Geo.  II. 

*Manualofthe  Common  Council  of  New  York,  1868,  26;   Explanatory  Act:  n 
Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620. 


2  i  g  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

under  which  the  city  of  New  York  was  first  organized.  It 
provided  that  six  aldermen,  six  assistant  aldermen,  consta- 
bles and  other  magistrates,  should  be  chosen  annually.  The 
mayor  as  well  as  the  sheriff  was  appointed  by  the  governor.1 
In  the  province  of  Pennsylvania  several  boroughs  were 
created  by  charter.  Chester,  Bristol,  and  Lancaster,  erected 
in  1701,  1720,  and  1742,  respectively,  were  empowered  by 
their  charters  to  elect  annually  "  fit  and  able  men"  to  be 
burgesses.  The  burgess  first  chosen  was  to  be  high  consta- 
ble.2 In  1773  Lancaster  was  granted  the  privilege  of  elect- 
ing annually  two  supervisors  and  two  assessors.3  In  North 
Carolina  the  electors  who  were  qualified  to  vote  for  the 
representative  from  Wilmington,  were  authorized  to  meet' 
annually  and  elect  five  men,  from  whom  the  governor  was  to 
appoint  three  commissioners.4 

1  Weise,  History  of  Albany,  200. 

2  For  the  charters  of  these  boroughs  see  Pennsylvania  Laics,  Miller  ed.  1762, 
14,  16,  18. 

3 13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  I,  §§  7,  8,    Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  495. 
4  Laws,  1740,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  114. 


CHAPTER  II.    THE  SUFFRAGE. 

§  i .  Town  Elections.  It  is  believed  that  all  persons  quali- 
fied to  vote  at  a  general  election  could  vote  in  town  meetings. 
In  New  England,  for  instance,  freemen  of  the  colony  seem  to 
have  been  permitted  to  vote  for  their  town  officers  as  well  as 
for  their  deputies.  In  the  present  work  the  deputies  to  the 
general  court  have  been  treated  as  general  officers,  following 
thus  the  analogy  of  those  colonies  which  elected  only  repre- 
sentatives or  delegates  to  the  assembly.  But  the  deputy  of 
the  Puritan  colony  was,  perhaps,  a  local  officer  in  that  he 
represented  the  freemen  of  the  town  from  which  he  came. 
Though  little  authority  has  come  within  the  notice  of  the 
writer,1  he  believes  that  deputies  were  elected  by  the  freemen 
of  the  colony  residing  in  the  towns  rather  than  by  those  vot- 
ing in  the  town  meetings  or  in  the  election  of  local  officers. 
The  reason  of  this  is  that  the  deputy  was  a  substitute  for 
each  freeman  of  his  town,  and  was  chosen  for  the  purpose  of 
exercising  the  functions  which  were  the  inherent  right  of  the 
freemen  of  the  colony  but  which  it  was  impossible  for  them 
to  exercise  directly.  The  present  section,  therefore,  treats 
only  of  the  qualifications  of  those  voters  who  were  not  free- 
men of  the  colony,  the  latter  being  always  qualified  to  vote 
for  local  officers.2  It  is  a  general  truth  that  local  suffrage 
was  wider,  more  inclusive,  than  colonial  suffrage,  i.  e.,  than 
that  by  which  the  election  of  deputies  to  the  general  court 
was  regulated. 

'See  New  Hampshire,  Act  1770,  Fowle  ed.,  1771,  Temporary  Laws,  40. 
2  Plymouth :  Laws,  1669,  Brighain,  156.    Massachusetts :  Laws,ed.  1660,  76;  ed. 
1814,  195.     Connecticut:  Session  Laws,  113,  269. 


220  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

In  the  Plymouth  colony  freeholders  of  twenty  pounds  ratable 
estate  and  of  good  conversation  who  were  not  Quakers,  and 
who  had  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity,  could  vote  for  town  officers.1 
Since  many  who  had  not  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity  tried  to 
vote  and  this  was  found  to  "  much  obstruct  the  carrying  on 
of  religion  in  the  publicke  weale"  it  was  enacted  later  that  a 
record  of  those  who  had  taken  the  oath  must  be  kept  by  the 
clerk  of  each  town.2  Some  years  later  voters  in  towns  were 
required  to  be  orthodox  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion.3 

In  1635  Massachusetts  enacted  that  only  freemen  could 
vote  in  towns  "  in  actions  of  authoritie  or  necessity,  or  that 
which  belongs  to  them  by  virtue  of  their  freedom  as-  receiv- 
ing inhabitants  and  laying  out  town  lots,  &c."  This  law  ex- 
tended to  towns,  the  law  permitting  only  church  members  to 
vote,  but  it  is  a  question  whether  this  restriction  applied  to 
the  electing  of  officers.*  On  account  of  the  "  ability"  of 
those  who  were  not  church  members  it  was  at  a  later  time 
found  advisable  to  permit  them  to  vote,  provided  that  they 
were  at  least  twenty-four  years  old.5  A  subsequent  enactment 
gave  a  vote  in  the  choice  of  selectmen  and  other  town  officers 
to  all  "Englishmen,  settled  inhabitants  and  householders,  of 
the  age  of  twenty-four,  of  honest  and  good  conversation,  be- 
ing rated  at  eighty  pounds  estate  in  a  single  country  rate, 
and  that  had  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  this  government."6 

Under  the  provincial  government  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
all  persons  coming  to  live  in  a  town  except  "  freeholders, 
proprietors  of  land  in  the  town,  those  born  or  having  served 
an  apprenticeship  or  removed  elsewhere,"  must  obtain  the 
consent  of  the  selectmen  of  the  town  before  they  could 

1  Laws,  1658,  Brigham,  114;  Laws,  1669,  ibid.,  156. 

2  Laws,  1678,  Brigham,  188.          3  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  Brigham,  258. 
4 1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  161. 

5  2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  109.       6 Laws,  ed.,  1660,  76;    1814,  195. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  221 

vote."1  Officers  were  elected  by  freeholders  and  other  inhab- 
itants rated  at  twenty  pounds  beside  the  poll,  "  real  estate  to 
be  set  at  so  much  only  as  the  rent  or  income  thereof  for  the 
space  of  six  years  would  amount  to  were  it  let  at  a  reason- 
able rate,  and  personal  estate  and  faculty  to  be  estimated  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  valuation"  prescribed  for  assessing  taxes. 
Disputes  on  this  point  were  settled  by  the  moderator.2  Qua- 
kers and  Anabaptists  were  exempt  from  taxes  for  religious 
purposes,  and  on  that  account  not  permitted  to  vote  on  ques- 
tions concerning  ministers  and  meeting  houses.3 

The  qualifications  for  electors  of  town  officers  in  New 
Hampshire  were  the  same  as  those  in  the  province  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay.4  This  is  true,  though  one  of  the  earliest  New 
Hampshire  laws  declared  the  suffrage  in  town  elections  to  be 
no  wider  than  that  existing  in  the  elections  held  for  the  choice 
of  assemblymen.5  A  temporary  law  passed  just  before  the 
Revolution  restricted  the  suffrage  in  town  elections  to  per- 
sons ratable  according  to  the  tax  laws,  for  thirty  shillings, 
including  their  polls.6 

In  each  of  the  Narragansett  towns  before  the  charter  of 
19  Charles  I,  freemen  were  admitted  and  disfranchised  or  sus- 
pended by  vote  of  the  entire  body  assembled  in  town  meet- 
ing,7 Under  the  charter,  towns  were  a  long  time  permitted 
to  exercise  their  option  in  admitting  such  inhabitants  as 
they  pleased.8  Ultimately  the  distinction  between  the  free- 

1  Laws,  1700-1,  chap.  23,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  452. 

*  Laws,  1092-3,  chap.  28,  §  4,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  65;    1735-6,  chap.  8,  §  I, 
2  Ames  and  Goodell,  761. 

3  1731,  2  Ames  and  Goodell,  620,  715,  877,  1022. 

4  4  Geo.  I,  chap.  82,  §  3,  Fowle  ed.,  1761,  230;   ed.,  1771,  124;   5  Geo.  I,  chap. 
87,  Fowle  ed.,  1761,  34,  2OI,  213;   ed.,  1771,  137. 

5  I  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  396,  403. 

6  Fowle  ed.,  1771,  Temporary  Laws,  40. 

7 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  53,  85,  119. 
8  1 8  Car.  II,  Franklin  ed,  1744,  9. 


222  HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 

dom  of  a  town  and  the  freedom  of  the  colony  seems  to  have 
been  obliterated,  and  the  qualifications  for  electors  came  to 
be  the  same  in  both  cases.1 

In  New  Haven  the  writer  has  found  no  distinction  between 
a  free  burgess  of  the  colony,  and  a  free  burgess  of  a  town.2 
Hartford,  on  the  other  hand,  permitted  persons  with  cer- 
tain qualifications  to  vote  in  town  meetings,  although  they 
could  not  be  freemen  of  the  colony.8  No  one  could  reside 
in  a  town  unless  he  was  formally  admitted  by  a  vote  of  the 
townsmen.4  It  seems  at  first  to  have  been  the  rule  that  any 
admitted  inhabitant  could  vote  for  town  officers,  but  ulti- 
mately it  was  enacted  that  besides  freemen,  only  an  "  admit- 
ted inhabitant,  Householder  and  a  man  of  sober  conversa- 
tion with  a  Freehold  estate,  Rated  at  fifty  shillings  in  the 
common  list  beside  his  person,"  should  be  allowed  to  vote 
in  town  elections,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  shillings.5  This 
act  seems  to  have  been  passed  with  the  intention  of  shutting 
out  all  who  had  only  a  transient  interest  in  a  town.  Under 
a  later  statute  the  owner  of  a  personal  estate  of  fifty  pounds, 
as  well  as  he  who  possessed  a  fifty-shilling  freehold  was  al- 
lowed to  vote,  provided  that  he  was  twenty-one  years  old.6 

Outside  of  New  England  the  qualifications  of  persons  vot- 
ing for  town  officers  do  not  appear  to  have  been  very  defi- 
nitely fixed.  In  New  York  the  term  "  freeholder  and  inhab- 
itant" is  common.7  By  this  phrase  we  are  probably  to  under- 
stand a  person  residing  in  the  town  and  possessing  a  freehold 
within  its  limits.  It  does  not  seem  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  word  inhabitant  was  of  wider  meaning  than  the 
word  freeholder.  The  two  terms  were  intended  to  qualify 
each  other,  in  order  to  limit  the  suffrage  to  those  possessing 

1  16  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  252.     2 1  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  113. 
3  Session  Laws,  113.  ^1643,  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  96. 

5  Session  Laws,  113.  6  Ibid.,  eds.  1750,  1754,  1769,  240. 

7  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  3. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


223 


more  than  a  transitory  interest  in  the  town.  The  same  re- 
mark applies  to  the  suffrage  at  parish  elections  in  New  York 
and  in  the  South. 

The  town  suffrage  in  New  Jersey  was  definitely  fixed  in 
1766,  when  a  statute  was  enacted  which  provided  that,  ex- 
cept in  towns  corporate,  no  person  should  vote  unless  he 
was  a  freeholder,  or  a  tenant  for  years,  or  a  householder,  and 
a  resident  in  the  township  or  precinct  where  he  voted.1  In 
Pennsylvania  the  pound-keeper  of  each  township  was  elected 
by  the  inhabitants  who  were  owners  or  possessors  of  land," 
but  the  suffrage  for  supervisor  elections  was  the  same  as  that 
for  members  of  the  assembly,  though  all  freeholders  seem 
to  have  been  allowed  to  vote.3 

§  2.  Parish  Elections.  In  general  it  may  be  stated  that 
the  possession  of  property  and  residence  within  a  parish  was 
sufficient  to  qualify  persons  to  vote  for  wardens  -and  vestry- 
men. 

In  a  few  cases  the  suffrage  was  more  explicitly  defined. 
Thus,  in  New  York  City,  vestrymen  were  chosen  by  persons 
qualified  to  vote  in  municipal  elections.4  In  Maryland  only 
those  inhabitants  who  were  freeholders  within  the  parish  and 
who  contributed  to  the  public  taxes  and  charges  thereof, 
could  vote.5  The  parish  suffrage  in  North  Carolina  was  re- 
stricted to  a  "  freeholder  in  actual  possession  of  estate,  real 
for  his  life  or  that  of  another  or  greater  estate,  either  fifty  acres 
or  a  lot  in  town  saved  according  to  law  within  the  parish."6 

1  6  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  450,  Allinson's  Laws,  287.  The  earlier  statutes  used  the 
words  "  freeholders  and  inhabitants,  householders;"  3  Geo.  I,  chap.  22,  Nevill's 
Laws,  44,  *  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  149. 

3  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  444. 

4  ii  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  624. 

5  I  Anne,  chap.  I,  §  8,  Bacon's  Laws,  Baskett  ed.,  1723,  13. 

6  5  Geo.  III.  chap.  2,   Davis  ed.,  1773,  305.     See  also  14  Geo.  II,  chap.  23, 
Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  157. 


224 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


South  Carolina  was  not  so  liberal  as  her  northern  sister,  for 
she  required  membership  in  and  conformity  to  the  religion 
of  the  Church  of  England.  In  addition  voters  were  required 
to  be  freeholders  and  residents  contributing  to  the  public 
charges  of  the  parish.1 

In  the  Connecticut  society  meetings  an  elector  was  re- 
quired either  to  be  in  full  communion  with  the  church  or 
else  to  possess  the  same  amount  of  property  as  a  voter  in  a 
town  election.2  Dissenters  who  were  on  that  account  ex- 
empt from  paying  taxes  were  not  permitted  to  vote.3 

§  3.  Mtmicipal  Elections.  The  Dongan  charter  gave  the 
inhabitants  of  each  ward  in  New  York  City  power  to  elect 
aldermen.4  We  have  already  seen  that  Leisler  had  the  mayor 
and  sheriff  elected  by  the  Protestant  freeholders.5  The  Mont- 
gomery charter  seems  to  have  gone  no  further  than  that  of 
Dongan  in  defining  the  qualifications  of  a  voter.6  It  was  not 
until  1771  that  the  assembly  passed  an  explanatory  act,7  in 
which  it  was  stated  that  the  aldermen  were  to  be  chosen  by 
the  freemen  and  freeholders  of  each  ward.  The  freemen  must 
have  held  their  freedom  for  at  least  three  months,8  and  have 
actually  resided  in  the  ward  for  one  month  before  the  election 
day.  The  qualification  of  a  person  voting  in  right  of  a  free- 
hold was  similar  to  that  required  in  general  elections.  This 
was  a  freehold  of  forty  pounds  not  held  in  trust  for  any 
body  corporate  or  politic  or  for  any  pious  or  religious  use ; 

1  Act  1704,  no.  225,  §  21,  2  Cooper,  242. 

2  Fifty  shillings  in  freehold,  or  forty  pounds  in  the  common  list.     12  Geo.  II, 
chap.  33,  Session  Laws,  362;    7  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  211. 

8  9  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  218. 

*  Mammal  of  the  Common  Council  of  Nnv  York,  1868,  9. 
5  3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  675. 

*  Manual  of  the  Common  Council  of  New  York,  1868,  26. 
7 II  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620. 

8  In  the  city  of  London,  liverymen  and  freemen  must  have  been  such  for  twelve 
calendar  months.     Statute  n  Geo.  I,  chap.  18. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES.  22$ 

and  it  must  have  been  in  the  possession  of  the  voter  for  one 
month  before  the  day  of  election  unless  it  was  acquired 
within  that  time  by  descent  or  devise.  A  mortgagor  could 
vote  if  he  was  in  possession  and  in  receipt  of  the  profits.  If 
not,  the  franchise  belonged  to  the  mortgagee.  The  estate 
of  a  voter  must  be  situated  within  the  ward  in  which  he  voted. 

The  qualifications  of  municipal  electors  in  Albany  were 
not  clearly  defined  until  1773,  when  a  contested  election  case 
was  decided  by  the  common  council.  A  set  of  regulations, 
founded,  it  was  said,  upon  the  custom  of  the  board,  was 
adopted,  and  these  show  that  the  suffrage  was  very  wide. 
Every  person  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  born  within  Brit- 
ish dominions,  could  vote- in  the  ward  where  he  resided,  pro- 
vided he  had  been  a  resident  of  the  city  for  six  weeks.  This 
was  the  general  rule,  and  to  it  there  were  a  few  exceptions : 
a  bond  servant  could  not  vote  during  the  time  of  his  servi- 
tude ;  the  votes  of  persons  who  were  influenced  by  bribes 
were  declared  null  and  void ;  aliens  were  prohibited  from 
voting,  whatever  might  have  been  the  length  of  their  resi- 
dence ;  persons  not  naturalized,  or  who  had  not  taken  the 
oaths  of  supremacy  or  allegiance,  were  debarred;  and  no  one 
could  vote  in  a  ward  to  which  he  had  removed  just  before  the 
day  of  election.  The  rule  in  regard  to  residence  was  much 
more  strictly  enforced  than  it  would  be  to-day,  and  a  man 
who  occasionally  went  out  of  town  to  visit  his  family  was  de- 
clared a  sojourner,  and  on  that  account  debarred  from  voting.1 

Lancaster  is  the  only  one  of  the  Pennsylvania  boroughs 
whose  charter  clearly  expressed  the  qualifications  of  an  elector. 
The  suffrage  was  restricted  to  inhabitants,  householders  within 
the  borough,  who  had  resided  there  for  a  year  preceding  the 
date  of  the  election,  and  who  had  hired  a  house  and  ground 
of  the  yearly  value  of  five  pounds  sterling.2, 

1  I  Collections  on  the  History  of  Albany,  250,  el  seq.         2  Miller  ed.,  1762,  18. 


CHAPTER  III.     THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  LOCAL  ELEC- 
*      TIONS. 

The  statute  books  of  the  American  colonies  contain  very 
few  provisions  which  show  in  what  manner  local  elections 
were  conducted.  There  is  greater  dearth  of  material  on  this 
subject  than  on  that  of  local  suffrage  which,  in  New  England 
at  least,  was  defined  with  some  degree  of  precision.  The 
manner  in  which  local  elections  were  to  be  called, 'and  the 
date  on  which  they  were  held,  were  usually  prescribed,  but 
beyond  this  no  general  regulation  appears  to  have  been 
attempted.  The  absence  of  statutory  provisions  concerning 
the  management  of  town  elections  would,  therefore,  seem  to 
show  that  the  matter  was  largely  governed  by  local  custom 
and  usage,  that  was  to  a  great  extent  moulded  by  the  influ- 
ence of  the  practices  then  current  at  general  elections. 

§  i.  Town  Elections.  In  Massachusetts,  under  the  second 
charter,  town  elections  were  held  during  the  month  of  March,1 
while  in  Connecticut'  they  took  place  in  December.  In  the 
former  colony  the  exact  date  was  fixed,  and  notice  was  given 
by  the  constable,1  while  in  the  latter  this  duty  devolved 
upon  the  selectmen.2 

In  Rhode  Island  the  freemen  of  each  town  appear  to  have 
appointed  a  date  for  their  local  elections,3  and  a  fine  was  im- 
posed on  all  towns  which  failed  to  elect  the  required  number 
of  officers.4  This  latter  provision  would  seem  to  have  been 

1  Laws,  1692-3,  chap.  28,  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  65,  Additional  acts  on  the  sub- 
ject of  town  electiors  are:  Laws,  1735-6,  chap.  8,  §  1,2  Ames  and  Goodell,  761; 
Laws,  1738-9,  chap.  26,  ibid.,  980;  Laws,  1742-3,  chap.  28,  §  i,  3  Ames  and 
Goodell,  47.  2  Session  Laws,  113. 

3  Franklin  ed.,  1744,  9.  4  Hall's  Code,  1767,  87. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


227 


necessary  in  the  other  New  England  colonies  as  well,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  election  of  the  prescribed  number 
of  officers  proved  a  burden  from  which  the  towns  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  escaped.  The  charter  granted  to 
Providence  in  1649  gave  to  the  inhabitants  of  that  town 
power  to  choose  their  officers  of  justice  on  the  first  second 
day  of  June  of  each  year.1  During  the  governorship  of 
Andros  the  towns  embraced  in  his  "dominion"  elected  their 
officers  annually  on  the  third  Monday  in  May.2  The  writer 
is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  written  ballot  was  generally 
used  in  New  England  town  elections.  In  the  Plymouth  col- 
ony we  find  a  statute  providing  that  selectmen  should  be 
chosen  "by  papers,"3  and  as  far  back  as  1637  such  appears 
to  have  been  the  practice  in  at  least  one  Massachasetts  town.4 
In  the  middle  colonies  town  elections  were  usually  held  in 
the  spring.  The  Duke's  Laws  appointed  the  first  of  April 
as  the  date  for  choosing  constables.5  Thus,  in  New  York 
they  took  place  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  April,  or  on  the  days 
expressed  in  the  charters  and  patents  of  the  several  towns.6 
In  New  Jersey  the  various  local  officers  were  chosen  on  the 
second  Tuesday  in  March,'  while  in  Pennsylvania  supervis- 
ors and  boards  of  audit  were  elected  on  the  third  Saturday 
of  the  same  month.8  In  the  latter  province  the  election  of  a 
pound-keeper  took  place  in  each  town  on  the  twentieth  of 
May,  or  on  the  following  day  if  that  should  happen  to  be 
First  Day.9  The  county  officials  were  chosen  in  the  autumn 

1 1  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  214.     23  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  247. 

3  Book  of  General  Laws,  1671,  chap.  5,  Brigham,  260. 

4  Coffin,  History  ofNewbury,  23.  5  Page  70,  ed.,  Harrisburg,  1879. 

6  3  Will,  and  Mary;  2  Anne;  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  3,  54,  756.  In  Albany  and 
Tyron  counties,  as  well  as  in  the  Manor  of  Rensselaerwyck,  they  were  held  on  the 
corresponding  day  of  May,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  689. 

"  Nevill's  Laws,  32,  44,  48.  8  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  404,  444. 

9  2  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  149. 


228  HISTOR  Y  OF  ELECTIONS 

at  the  time  of  the  selection  of  assemblymen,1  while  in  Dela- 
ware the  various  hundreds  voted  for  assessors  on  September 
1 5th.2 

For  the  purpose  of  electing  poor  officers  in  New  Jersey, 
meetings  were  called  at  a  convenient  time  and  place  on  the 
warrant  of  any  one  justice  of  the  peace.3  After  1744,  how- 
ever, these  officials  were  chosen  at  the  regular  town  meetings, 
and  vacancies  were  filled  at  special  elections  called  "  on  a 
short  day,"  by  means  of  a  precept  from  a  justice.4  In  Penn- 
sylvania there  were  provisions  requiring  a  notice  of  five  days 
of  all  town  elections.  Advertisements  were  posted  in  the 
most  conspicuous  places  of  the  several  towns  and  boroughs.5 
These  elections  were  generally  held  in  the  afternoon  between 
the  hours  of  three  and  six,6  though  in  the  borough  of  Lancas- 
ter the  hours  were  from  ten  until  four.7  Ten  days'  notice  was 
required  for  the  elections  of  assessors  in  Delaware,  and  they 
must  take  place  before  six  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.8  In  New 
Jersey  the  chosen  freeholders  were  elected  in  the  most  pub- 
lic place  of  each  town.9  This  was  also  true  of  pound-keepers 
in  Pennsylvania,10  although  supervisors  were  chosen  at  a 
point  as  near  to  the  centre  of  the  township  as  was  possible.11 

In  the  laws  of  the  middle  colonies  very  little  is  said  in  re- 
gard to  the  procedure  at  town  elections.  In  Pennsylvania 
it  was  provided  that  the  voting  should  be  by  means  of 
"  tickets  in  writing."12  There  was  nearly  always  some  provision 
in  regard  to  the  choice  by  a  majority  or  a  plurality  of  voices, 
but  a  precise  meaning  does  not  always  attach  to  these  terms. 

1  October  ist.  2  6  Geo.  Ill,  Adams  ed.,  1797,  429. 

x  7  Anne,  chap.  6,  Nevill's   Laws.  *  14  Geo.  Ill,  Allinson's  Laws, 408. 

5  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  404,  444,  495. 

6  Ibid.,  444.  7  Ibid.,  495.  8  Adams  ed.,  1797,  429. 

9  12  and  13  Anne,  chap.   18,  Nevill's  Laws,  32. 

10  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  149.  u  Ibid.,  444.  12  Ibid.,  404,  444. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


229 


For  example,  the  writer  has  found  one  statute  in  which  the 
words  majority  and  plurality  occur  in  the  same  connection, 
and  are  apparently  used  interchangeably.1  In  Pennsylvania 
the  persons  chosen  as  supervisors  were  returned  in  writing  be- 
fore March  25th  to  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  quarter  ses- 
sions. Their  certificates  were  under  the  hands  of  the  super- 
visors of  the  public  roads.2 

§  2.  Parish  Elections.  Wherever  the  Church  of  England 
was  established  it  would  seem  proper  to  have  parish  elec- 
tions takejDlace  on  Easter  Monday.  Such  was  indeed  the 
rule  in  Maryland3  and  in  both  North*  and  South5  Carolina. 
In  New  York,  however,  vestry  elections  were  held  on  the  sec- 
ond Tuesday  in  January,6  although  after  1770  the  city  vestry 
was  chosen  at  the  city  hall  on  the  feast  of  St.  Michael,  which 
was  also  the  day  appointed  for  municipal  elections.7  Before 
this  two  vestrymen  had  been  chosen  in  each  ward.  In  this 
province  the  electors  were  called  together  by  warrants  issued 
by  the  justices  of  the  peace  to  the  various  constables.8 

In  Virginia  no  particular  date  was  fixed  for  parish  elec- 
tions. The  earlier  statutes  required  that  warning  should  be 
given,9  while  the  law  passed  by  Bacon's  assembly  com- 
manded the  wardens  to  publish  an  election  on  two  succes- 
sive Sundays.10  In  South  Carolina  notice  of  vestry  elections 

1  New  Jersey :  4  Geo.  II,  chap.  4,  Nevill's  Laws,  200. 

2  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  <\<\<\. 

3 1  Anne,  chap.  I,  §  8,  Bacon's  Laws  ;  Baskett  ed.,  1723,  13. 

4  14  Geo.  II,  chap.  23,  Davis  and  Swann  ed.,  1752,  157;  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2, 
Davis  ed.,  1773,  305. 

6  Act  1704,  no.  225,  §§  21,  22,  2  Cooper,  242. 

6  4  Will,  and  Mary,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  19.  The  date  for  Richmond  County 
was  afterwards  changed  to  the  third  Tuesday  in  March.  Van  Schaack's  Laws' 2^0. 

1  10  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  Van  Schaack's  Laws.,  624. 

8  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  19,  566.  9  1 6  Car.  I,  Act  v,  I  Hening,  290. 

^Bacon's  Laws,  Act  vi,  2  Hening,  356. 


230 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


was  given  by  public  summons.1  In  North  Carolina,  on 
some  Sunday  at  least  forty  days  in  advance,  the  sheriff 
posted  notices  on  every  church  and  chapel  and  also  publicly 
read  the  election  law  at  the  door  of  the  court  house  between 
the  hours  of  twelve  and  one  on  the  second  day  of  the  court 
preceding  the  election.  Such  thorough  publication  was 
doubtless  necessary  because  in  this  province  elections  took 
place  but  once  in  three  years,  and  the  attendance  of  all  ex- 
cept Quakers  was  required.  The  only  valid  excuse  for 
absence  was  "  bodily  infirmity  or  legal  disability,"  and  the 
penalty  for  non-attendance  was  twenty  shillings  proclama- 
tion money,  which  could  be  recovered  within  ten  days  by  a 
warrant  from  a  justice  of  the  peace.2  In  case  of  "badness 
.of  weather  or  any  other  unavoidable  hindrance"  and  "un- 
foreseen accidents"  in  both  the  last  named  provinces,  ves- 
trymen could  be  elected  on  days  other  than  those  appointed 
by  law.  In  such  a  contingency  a  sheriff  in  North  Carolina 
appointed  a  day  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  twenty 
days  in  the  future,  and  personally  summoned  the  freehold- 
ers ;  while  in  South  Carolina  public  notice  on  two  Sundays 
was  sufficient.  The  old  vestrymen  held  over  until  their  suc- 
cessors were  elected,  and,  if  the  conditions  precedent  were 
strictly  complied  with,  the  election  though  postponed  was  as 
valid  as  if  it  had  taken  place  on  Easter  Monday.3  In  gen- 
eral it  may  be  stated  that  vestry  elections  took  place  in  the 
parish  church,  or  if  there  was  none  at  some  convenient  place.4 
A  peculiar  feature  of  the  Maryland  parish  meeting  was 
the  preliminary  voting  in  order  to  determine  which  of  the 

1  Act  1704,  no.  225,  §§  21,  22,  2  Cooper,  242. 

2  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  305. 

3 North  Carolina:  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  305.     South  Carolina: 
Act  1712,  no.  307,  §  6,  2  Cooper,  366. 

4  South  Carolina:  Act  1704,  no.  225.  §21,  2  Cooper,  242.     Maryland:  I  Anne, 
chap,  i,  §  8,  Bacon's  Laws* 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


231 


vestrymen  in  office  should  be  discharged.  The  law  required 
that  two  vestrymen  should  go  out  of  office  each  year,  but 
gave  to  the  parishioners  the  power  of  deciding  who  should 
be  put  out.1  In  South  Carolina  an  election  for  the  choice  of 
a  minister  was  called  by  commissioners,  and  returns  were 
made  to  them  within  two  months.  If  this  last  step  was 
omitted  the  commissioners  could  declare  an  election  void.2 

The  statutes  governing  parish  elections  contain  the  usual 
vague  provisions  in  regard  to  plurality  or  majority  of  voices, 
one  term  being  used  about  as  often  as  the  other.  The 
writer  thinks  that  parish  officers  were  chosen  by  viva  voce 
vote,  though  he  is  aware  that  in  the  only  two  instances  where 
detailed  regulations  were  given,  provision  is  made  for  a  poll. 

At  first  in  New  York  City  vestrymen  were  chpsen  in  every 
ward/  but  after  1770  they  were  elected  at  the  City  Hall  at 
eleven  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  festival  of  St.  Michael 
the  Archangel.  The  Mayor,  Deputy  and  Recorder  presided, 
and  if  no  poll  were  demanded  it  became  their  duty  at  the  ex- 
piration of  two  hours,  to  declare  who  was  elected.  If  a  poll 
were  required  they  appointed  and  swore  in  a  clerk,  who  was 
to  take  it  down  in  writing.  If  in  two  days  all  the  votes  could 
not  be  recorded,  the  presiding  officer  had  authority'  to  ad- 
journ the  poll.  The  election  could  not  be  closed  so  long  as 
there  were  any  voters  awaiting  to  be  polled  or  until  proclam- 
ation had  been  made  and  an  interval  of  fifteen  minutes  had 
elapsed.4 

In  North  Carolina  the  course  of  procedure  was  similar.  At 
ten  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  election,  which  was  held 
"  at  the  usual  place,"  the  sheriff  or  his  deputy  made  procla- 
mation and  began  to  take  the  poll.  The  name  of  each  elec- 

1  I  Anne,  chap,  i,  §  8,  Bacon's  Laws, 

2  Act  1712,  no.  307,  2  Cooper,  366.  s  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  267. 

• 
4  II  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  §  12,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  624.     See  also  ibid.,  566. 


232 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


tor  was  entered  in  a  book,  but  in  all  cases  the  full  number  of 
twelve  vestrymen  must  be  voted  for.  All  votes  were  given 
openly,  and  at  sunset  the  sheriff  cast  up  the  votes  and  an- 
nounced the  election  of  the  twelve  candidates  having  the 
highest  number  of  suffrages.  In  case  of  a  tie  the  sheriff  was 
given  a  casting  vote.  For  illegal  voting  there  was  a  fine  of 
.£5,  half  of  which  went  to  the  informer  and  half  to  the  poor. 
In  such  cases  the  onus  probandi  was  placed  on  the  defend- 
ant.1 

There  were  few  provisions  in  regard  to  parish  elections  in 
Connecticut,  and  these  disclose  no  vital  differences  from  the 
methods  followed  in  town  meetings.  The  settled  inhabitants 
of  parishes  met  annually  in  the  month  of  December  for  the 
purpose  of  choosing  a  new  clerk  and  committee.  Five  days' 
notice  of  such  meetings  were  given  by  the  persons  in  office.2 
After  new  societies  had  been  drawn  off,  organization  was 
effected  at  a  meeting  called  by  a  warrant  issued  by  an  assist- 
ant and  a  justice  on  the  demand  of  three  inhabitants.8 
Town  and  society  elections  do  not  seem  to  have  been  very 
peacefully  managed  in  this  colony,  for  a  law  was  passed  im- 
posing a  fine  of  five  shillings  upon  all  persons  participating 
in  disturbances  at  such  meetings.4 

§  3.  Municipal  Elections.  We  have  seen  that  the  free- 
holders and  freemen  of  New  York  were  authorized  by  the 
Dongan  and  Montgomery  charters  to  elect  certain  officers  on 
the  feast  of  St.  Michael  the  Archangel.  The  earlier  instru- 
ment prescribed  a  majority  of  votes  as  necessary  to  consti- 
tute an  election,  while  the  second  declared  a, plurality  suffic- 
ient. Each  ward  was  constituted  an  election  district,  and  no 

J5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  305. 

2  6  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  33;  4  Geo.  I,  Session  Laws,  231. 

3  7   Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  74;    13  Geo.  I,  Session  Laws,  335. 
42*Geo.  II,  chap.  41,  Session  Laws,  366. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


233 


further  provision  was  made  beyond  empowering  the  aldermen 
of  each  ward  to  appoint  -the  place  of  election.  In  conse- 
quence many  abuses  arose,  but  it  was  not  until  1771  that 
a  statute  was  enacted  explaining  the  manner  in  which  New 
York  City  officers  were  to  be  chosen.1 

By  virtue  of  this  law,  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Common- 
alty were  authorized  to  appoint  returning  officers  and  fix  the 
places  of  election  eight  days  in  advance.  The  returning 
officer  was  always  a  resident  of  the  ward  in  which  he  acted, 
and  clerks  were  also  appointed  to  'take  the  poll,  at  a  com- 
pensation of  twenty  shillings,  lawful  money  of  New  York. 
Every  elector  was  required  to  declare  publicly  whether  he 
voted  by  virtue  of  his  freedom  or  of  his  freehold.  For  re- 
fusal to  so  declare,  his  vote  was  null  and  void.  Persons  hav- 
ing freeholds  fronting  on  the  East  side  of  Broadway  could 
vote  only  in  the  West  ward.2 

In  the  Dongan  charter  of  Albany  the  provisions  in  regard 
to  the  manner  of  conducting  elections  were  as  vague  as  those 
in  the  New  York  charter.*  From  the  evidence  submitted  at 
the  trial  of  a  contested  election  case  in  1773,  we  are  able  to 
gather  some  information  bearing  on  this  subject.  The  day 
of  election,  as  fixed  by  charter,  was  the  festival  of  St.  Michael 
the  Archangel,  and  the  aldermen  appear  to  have  taken  the 
poll  on  the  stoops  of  their  several  residences.  The  elections 
began  at  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  the  polls  were 
open  until  between  four  and  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 
One  of  the  electors  testified  that  on  going  to  the  stoop  where 
he  had  heard  that  the  poll  for  his  ward  was  being  taken,  he 

1  Both  charters  were  published  in  the  Manual  of  the  Common  Council,  1868. 

2  1 1  Geo.  ill,  chap.  1492,  §§  3, 6,  9,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620.     Some  of  the 
provisions  of  this  act  were  probably  taken  from  the  English  statute  of  1 1  Geo.  I, 
chap.  1 8,  which  regulated  the  elections  of  aldermen  and  other  municipal  officers 
within  the  city  of  London. 

3  Weise,  History  of  Albany,  200. 


234 


HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS 


found  it  closed.  He  complained  that  he  received  no  notice 
of  the  time  of  closing,  but  as  it  appeared  that  he  did  not 
offer  to  vote  until  after  five  o'clock,  and  had  failed  to  call  on 
the  magistrate  afterwards,  the  common  council  held  that  he 
had  forfeited  his  vote,  because  the  poll  had-not  in  fact  been 
closed  until  after  four  o'clock,  and  then  only  because  no 
more  electors  had  offered  to  vote. 

The  testimony  of  several  of  the  witnesses  shows  that 
bribery  prevailed  to  an  alarming  extent  at  this  election. 
From  five  to  ten  pounds  appears  to  have  been  the  usual 
price  for  a  vote.  In  two  cases  it  appears  that  forty  pounds 
were  paid,  and  it  was  proved  that  one  of  the  persons  v^ho 
had  sold  themselves  at  this  price  told  a  bystander  that  he 
was  going  to  buy  cattle  with  his  money,  and  that  "  he  would 
be  d — d  if  he  would  vote  before  he  had -been  paid."1 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  municipal  election  in  Philadel- 
phia is  found  after  1771.  In  that  year  the  freeholders  of  the 
city  were  first  permitted  to  vote  for  two  wardens,  at  the  same 
time  that  they  elected  burgesses  for  the  assembly.  The 
names  of  the  candidates  were  ordered  to  be  written  on  a 
separate  piece  of  paper,  and  delivered  to  the  tellers.  The 
persons  elected  were  returned  by  certificate  "  to  the  Mayor, ' 
Recorder  and  Aldermen  at  their  general  sessions  of  the 
peace,"  and  entry  was  made  in  the  minute  book  by  the  clerk 

of  the  court.2 

* 

The  laws  contain  no  specific  provisions  concerning  the 
manner  of  holding  elections  in  the  Pennsylvania  boroughs. 
The  day  on  which  officers  must  be  chosen  was  usually  fixed 
by  the  terms  of  the  charter.  In  Chester  the  burgesses  and 
the  high  constable  were  elected  by  ballot.3  In  Lancaster  the 

1  I  Collections  on  the  History  of  Albany,  250,  et  seq. 
2 II  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  19,  §  2,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  417. 
3  Miller  ed.,  1762,  14.     All  the  Pennsylvania  city  and  borough  charters  are  also 
given  in  full  by  Hall  and  Sellers. 


IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 


235 


names  of  the  persons  chosen  as  borough  officers  were  certi- 
fied under  seal  to  the  governor  within  ten  days  after  the 
election.1  In  the  election  of  a  supervisor  and  assessor  Lan- 
caster was  treated  precisely  like  an  ordinary  town,  except 
that  the  voting  took  place  at  the  court  house  between  the 
hours  of  ten  and  four.  Returns  were  made  by  one  of  the 
burgesses.'' 

1  Miller  ed.,  1762,  15. 

*  13  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2.  §§  7,  8,  Hall  and  Sellers  ed.,  1775,  495. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A. 

WRITS,  RETURNS  AND  OATHS. 

In  the  following  pages  are  collected  a  number  of  the  writs 
and  returns  which  were  in  use  at  various  times  in  the  Ameri- 
can colonies.  Some  of  the  forms  were  prescribed  by  statute, 
and  the  writer  has  added  copies  of  the  writs  used  in  calling 
the  first  elections  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland, 
as  well  as  the  instrument  used  by  Governor  Dongan  of  New 
York,  in  summoning  his  second  assembly.  In  Massachusetts 
Bay  a  statute  prescribed  the  form  of  the  precepts  which  were 
addressed  by  the  sheriffs  to  .the  selectmen  of  the  several 
towns  and  of  the  returns  made  by  the  latter.  The  early 
returns  in  Maryland  are  crude  examples  of  a  return  by  in- 
denture. 

In  regard  to  oaths,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  statute  did 
not  in  all  cases  lay  down  the  precise  form  to  be  followed. 
In  the  case  of  an  election  officer,  as  a  rule,  it  was  simply 
enacted  that  he  should  swear  to  do  certain  things  in  a  proper 
manner.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oaths  to  be  taken  by 
electors  were  usually  given  in  full,  and  it  is  these  that  form 
the  second  portion  of  this  appendix.  The  oath  of  a  free- 
man in  a  New  England  colony  was  taken  at  the  time  of  his 
admission,  and  it  was  therefore  in  one  sense  an  elector's  oath, 
because  the  suffrage  was  limited  to  freemen.  In  other  cases 
the  oaths  were  usually  administered  upon  demand  of  the 
candidates  or-  upon  challenge.  The  occasions  on  which  an 
oath  was  required  are  mentioned  in  the  following  pages,  and 
whenever  a  particular  oath  resembles  one  of  those  used  in 
England  the  proper  reference  is  given. 


240  APPENDICES. 

I.   WRITS  AND  RETURNS. 

MASSACHUSETTS.1 

Writ  for  calling  a  great  and  general  court  or  assembly. 

William  and  Mary,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  England,  Scot- 
land,.France  and  Ireland,  king  and  queen,  defenders  of  the 
faith,  &c. 

To  our  sheriff  or  marshal  of  our  county  of  Greeting: 

WEE  command  that  upon  receipt  hereof  you  forthwith 
make  out  your  precepts,  directed  unto  the  selectmen  of  each 
respective  town  within  your  precinct  requiring  them  to  cause 
the  freeholders  and  other  inhabitants  of  their  several  towns, 
duly  qualified  as  in  and  by  our  royal  charter  is  direct,  to 
assemble  at  such  time  and  place  as  they  shall  appoint,  to 
elect  or  depute  one  or  more  persons  (being  freeholders 
within  our  said  province),  according  to  the  number  set  and 
limited  by  an  act  of  our  general  assembly  within  the  same, 
to  serve  for  and  represent  them  respectively,  in  a  great  and 
general  court  or  assembly  by  us  appointed  to  be  convened 
held  &  kept  for  our  service  at  the  town  house  in  Boston 
upon  the  day  of  next  ensuing  the  date  of  these 

presents.  And  to  cause  the  person  or  persons  so  elected 
and  deputed  by  the  major  part  of  the  electors  present  at 
such  elections,  to  be  timely  notified  and  summoned  by  the 
constable  or  constables  of  such  town  to  attend  our  service  in 
the  said  great  and  general  court  or  assembly  on  the  day 
above  prefixed  by  nine  in  the  morning:  and  so  de  die  in 
diem  during  their  session  and  sessions,  and  to  return  the 
said  precepts  with  the  names  of  the  persons  so  elected  and 
deputed  unto  yourself.  Whereof  you  are  to  make  return 
together  with  this  writ  and  of  your  doings  therein  under 
your  hand,  unto  our  secretary's  office  at  Boston,  one  day  at 

lLaws,  1692-3,  chap.  36;  I  Ames  and  Goodell,  80.  Other  forms  may  be  found 
in  this  volume  of  the  Acts  and  Resolves. 


APPENDICES. 


24-1 


least  before  said  court's  sitting.  Hereof  you  may  not  fail  at 
your  peril.  Witness  Sir  W.  P.,  Knight,  our  captain  general 
and  governor  in  chief  and  over  our  province  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  in  New  England.  Given  at  Boston  under  the 
publick  seal  of  our  province  aforesaid,  the  day  of  169 

in  the         year  of  our  reign. 
By  his  excellencie's  command. 

Precept  to  the  selectmen  for  the  choice  of  representatives. 
Suffolk :   ss. 

In  observance  of  their  majesties'  writ  to  me  directed. 

THESE  are  in  their  majesties'  names  to  will  and  require 
you  forthwith  to  cause  the  freeholders  and  other  inhabitants 
of  your  town,  that  have  an  estate  of  freehold  within  this 
province  or  territory  of  forty  shillings  per  annum  at  the 
least,  or  other  estate  to  the  value  of  forty  pounds  sterling,  to 
assemble  and  meet  at  such  time  and  place  as  you  shall  ap- 
point, then  and  there  to  elect  and  depute  one  or  more  per- 
sons fbeing  freeholders  within  the  province),  according  to 
the  number  set  and  limited  by  an  act  of  the  general  assem- 
bly to  serve  for  and  represent  them  in  a  great  and  general 
court  or  assembly  appointed  to  be  convened,  held  and  kept 
for  their  majesties  service  at  the  town  house  in  Boston  upon 
the  day  of  next  ensuing  the  date  hereof;  and 
to  cause  the  person  or  persons  so  elected  and  deputed  by 
the  major  part  of  the  electors  present  at  such  election  to  be 
timely  notified  and  summoned  by  one  or  more  of  the  con- 
stables of  the  town  to  attend  their  majesties'  service  in  the 
said  great  and  general  court  or  assembly,  on  the  day  above 
prefixed  by  nine  in  the  morning,  and  so  de  die  in  diem  dur- 
ing their  session  and  sessions.  Hereof  fail  not,  and  make 
return  of  this  precept  with  the  name  of  the  person  or  per- 
sons so  elected  and  deputed,  with  their  being  summoned, 
unto  myself  on  or  before  the  day  of  abovesaid. 


242 


APPENDICES. 


Given  under   my  hand   and    seal  at     the         day  of 
169     in  the         year  of  their  majesties'  reign. 
AB         of  the  county  of 
To  the  selectmen  of  the  town  of  greeting. 

Return  to  be  endorsed  on  back  of  precept. 

Pursuant  to  the  precept  within  written,  the  freeholders  and 
other  inhabitants  of  this  town  qualified  as  is. therein  directed, 
upon  due  warning  given,  assembled  and  met  together  the 
day  of  and  then  did  elect  and  depute  AB  and  CD 
to  serve  for  and  represent  them  in  the  session  and  sessions 
of  the  great  and  general  court  or  assembly  appointed  to  be 
begun  and  held  at  Boston  on  the  day  of  ,  the  said 
persons  being  chosen  by  the  major  part  of  the  electors  pres- 
ent at  said  meeting. 

Dated  in  the         day  of 


\   Selectmen. 

J 


The  persons  chosen  are  notified  thereof  and  summoned  to 
attend  accordingly. 

By  me  :   AB,  constable  of  C. 

NEW    YORK. 

Writ  calling  the  second  Assembly^ 

James  the  Second  by  the  Grace  of  God,  King  of  England, 
Scotland,  France  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  &c., 
Supreme  Lord  and  Proprietor  of  the  Colony  and  Province 
of  New  York  and  its  dependencies  in  America. 

To  Esq.,  Sheriff  of  County  Greeting. 

Wee  Require  Comand  and  strictly  Enjoyne  you  that  forth- 
with you  cause  all  the  Freeholders  of  your  County  to  meett 
together  in  some  convenient  Place  there  to  chuse  one  per- 

1  Introduction  to  Journal  of  Legislative  Council,  iv. 


APPENDICES.  243 

son  to  be  theire  Representative  for  County  in  a  General 
Assembly  to  be  holden  at  the  Citty  of  New  Yorke  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  October  next  ensueing  the  date  hereof  in 
order  to  consult  with  our  Gouernor  and  Council  of  New 
Yorke  and  its  depend encyes  what  Lawes  are  fitt  and  neces- 
sary to  be  made  and  established  for  the  good  weale  and 
Gouernment  of  the  said  colony,  and  you  are  in  5  weekes  after 
the  election  to  have  the  name  of  the  Person  so  Elected  Re- 
turned unto  the  Secretaryes  Office. 

In   testimony   whereof    I   haue    caused    the  scale    of   the 
Province  to  be  hereunto  afixed this  i/th  day  of  Augst ,  1685. 
Passed  the  office  Test,  THO.  DONGAN. 

JOHN  SCRAGGE,  Secry. 

NEW   JERSEY.1 

Proclamation  of  Gov'r  Carteret  calling  the  first  Assembly. 

Whereas  by  the  Infinite  Goodness  Providence  and  bless- 
ing of  Almighty  God  this  Province  of  New  Jersey  is  in  a 
probable  way  of  being  populated  there  being  a  Considerable 
number  of  families  already  settled  in  severall  parts  of  the 
same  and  many  more  that  m  a  short  tyme  will  come  and 
place  themselves  vndr  this  Gouernment,  for  the  better  prop- 
agating and  Incouragement  thereof  I  have  thought  fit  with 
the  advice  of  my  Councill  to  appoint  a  Generall  Assembly 
to  begin  the  XXVth  day  of  May  next  Ensuing  the  date  hereof 
for  the  making  and  Constituting  such  .wholsome  Laws  as 
shall  be  most  needfull  and  Necessary  for  the  good  govern- 
ment of  the  said  Province  &  the  maintayning  of  a  religious 
Communion  &  ciuil  society  one  w*  the  other  as  becometh 
Christians  without  which  it  Vmpossible  for  any  body 
Politicq  to  prosper  or  subsist.  Wherefore  These  are  in  the 
Lords  Proprietors  Names  to  Will  and  Require  all  the  free- 

1 1  New  "Jersey  Archives,  56. 


244 


APPENDICES. 


holders  belonging  to  To  make  choice  and  appoint 

two  able  men  that  are  freeholders  and  dwellers 'Wth  in  the 
said  Limits  to  be  your  Burgesses  and  Representatives  for 
you,  And  they  being  Impowered  by  you  are  to  make  their  per- 
sonall  appearance  at  Elizabethtowne  the  25*  day  of  May 
next  as  aforesaid  &  there  to  join  wth  me  your  Gouernour  & 
my  Councill  to  advise  in  the  Management  of  the  affaires  that 
are  needfull  and  Necessary  for  the  Orderly  &  Well  Gouern- 
ing  of  the  said  Province  hereof  you  may  not  faile  as  You  and 
Every  of  you  Will  answere  your  contempt  to  the  contrary. 
GIVEN  vndr  the  scale  of  Prouince  the  seauenth  day  of  Aprill 
1668  and  in  the  XX  yeare  of  the  Reign  of  Our  Souereign 
Lord  Charles  the  Second  of  England,  Scotland,  France  & 
Ireland,  King  Defendr  of  the  Faith  &c. 

PH  CARTERET. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Writ  calling  the  first  assembly,  1682^ 

(L.  S.)  WILLIAM  PENN,  Proprietary  and  Governor  of  the 
province  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  territories  thereunto  be- 
longing: 

I  do  hereby  in  the  King's  name,  empower  and  require 
thee  to  summon  all  the  freeholders  in  thy  bailiwick  to  meet 
on  the  2Oth  day  of  the  next  month,  at  the  polls  upon  the 
Delaware  River ;  and  that  they  then  and  there  elect  and 
chuse  out  of  themselves,  twelve  persons  of  most  note  for 
wisdom  and  integrity,  to  serve  as  their  delegates  in  the  pro- 
vincial Council  to  be  held  at  Philadelphia,  the  loth  day  of 
the  first  month  next;  and  that  thou  there  declare  to  the  said 
freemen,  that  they  may  all  personally  appear  at  an  Assembly, 
at  the  place  aforesaid  according  to  the  contents  of  my 

1 1  Proud  History  of  Pennsylvania,  234. 


APPENDICES.  245 

charter  of  liberties ;  of  which  thou  art  to  make  me  a  true 
and  faithful  return. 

Given  at  Philadelphia,  the  day  of  the  month 

1682,  WILLIAM  PENN. 

To  Richard  Noble,  High  Sheriff  of  the  county  of  Bucks ; 
and  the  other  five  Sheriffs  likewise  for  their  several  counties. 

MARYLAND.    . 

Writ  calling  the  first  assembly? 

Warr1  to  Cap1  Evelin 
Touching  the  Generall  Assembly. 

After  my  hearty  Commendaons  &c  whereas  my  dear 
brother  the  Lord  Proprietr  of  this  Province,  hath  by  his  Com- 
mission to  me  directed  in  that  behalfe  bearing  date  at  Lon- 
don in  the  Realme  of  England,  the  I  "5th  day  of  Aprill  1637 
appointed  a  grail  assembly  of  all  the  freemen  of  this  Prov- 
ince to  be  held  at  his  town  of  S*  maries  on  the  five  and 
twentieth  day  of  January  next  These  are  therefore  in  his 
LoPs  name  to  will  and  require  you  (all  excuses  sett  apart) 
to  make  your  psonall  repaire  to  the  ffort  of  Sl  maries  on 
the  said  five  and  twentieth  day  of  January,  then  and  there 
to  consult  and  advise  of  the  affaires  of  this  Province.  And 
further  to  will  and  require  you  at  some  convenient  time  when 
you  shall  thinke  fitt  within  6  daies  after  the  receipt  hereof  at 
the  furthest,  to  assemble  all  the  freemen  inhabiting  within 
any  part  of  yo^  iurisdiction :  and  then  and  there  to  publish 
and  proclaim  the  said  generall  assembly;  and  to  endeavour 
to  perswade  such  and  so  many  of  the  said  freemen  as  you 
shall  thinke  fitt  to  repair  psonally  to  the  said  assembly  at 
the  time  &  place  prefixed ;  and  to  give  free  power  &  liberty 
to  all  the  rest  of  the  said  freemen  either  to  be  pnt  at  the 
said  assembly  if  they  so  please :  or  otherwise  to  elect  and 

^Maryland  State  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  i. 


246  APPENDICES. 

nominate  such  and  so  many  persons  as  they  or  the  main 
part  of  them  so 'assembled  shall  agree  vpon  to  be  the  depu- 
ties or  burgesses  for  the  said  freemen,  in  their  name  and 
steed  to  advise  and  consult  of  such  things  as  shalbe  brought 
into  deliberation  in  the  said  assembly ;  and  to  enter  all  the 
severall  votes  or  suffrages  vpon  record ;  and  the  record 
thereof,  and  of  whatsoever  you  shall  doe  in  any  the  premises 
to  bring  along  with  you  ;  and  exhibite  it  at  the  day  and  place 
prefixed  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Province  for  the  time  being, 
And  for  so  doing  this  shalbe  yor  warr1  Given  at  St.  maries 
this  3Oth  day  of  January  1637. 

Second  Assembly,  Feby  15  163  8-9 l 
After  my  hearty  commendation  &c  Whereas  I  have  ap- 
pointed to  hold  a  General  Assembly  at  Sl  Maries  on  the 
twelfe  day  of  ffebruary  .next  there  to  advise  and  Consult 
upon  the  enacting  of  Laws  and  other  Serious  affairs  of  the 
Province,  These  are  therefore  to  will  and  require  you  at 
Some  Convenient  time  where  you  Shall  think  fit  after  the 
receipt  of  these  Letters  to  assemble  at  Kent  ffort,  all  the 
Freemen  inhabiting  within  the  Isle  of  Kent  and  then  and 
there  to  propound  to  the  Said  ffreemen  to  chuse  from 
amongst  themselves  two  or  more  discreet  honest  men  to  be 
their  deputies  or  Burgesses  during  the  next  assembly  ac- 
cording to  the  form  of  an  Instrument  which  I  herewith  Send 
unto  you,  to  which  Instrument,  which  I  herein  Send  you,  to 
wch  Instrument  all  the  Said  ffreemen  are  to  set  their  hands, 
And  if  they  agree  not  in  the  election,  then  you  are  to  return 
upon  the  Instrument  the  names  of  Such  two  or  more  per- 
sons upon  whome  the  Major  part  of  the  ffreemen  Soe  as- 
sembled Shall  consent,  And  you  Shall  require  the  ffreemen 
So  assembled  to  agree  upon  a  Certain  Contribution  for  the 
defraying  of  the  Charges  wch  Such  Burgesses  Shall  Sustain 

1  Maryland  State  Archives,  l  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  27,  28. 


APPENDICES. 


247 


by  the  repairing  to  the  assembly  and  together  with  them 
you  Shall   return   hither  the  Instrument  of  their  Election 
Signed  as  is  appointed  afore,  and  for  Soe  doeing  this  Shall 
be  your  warrant,  Given  at  S*  Marie's  this  2 Ith  Decemb  1638 
To  my  Loveing  Kinsman  Will :   Braithwait 
Commander  of  the 


Caecilius  Lord  Proprietary  &ca  to  our  dear  Friend  &  Coun- 
cillor Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esqr  Greeting  whereas  we  have 
appointed  to  hold  a  General  Assembly  of  the  Freemen  of 
our  Province  at  our  Fort  of  S*  Marys  on  the  five  and  twen- 
tieth day  of  February  next  we  do  therefore  hereby  will  and 
require  you  that  all  excuses  and  delays  sett  apart  you  repair 
in  Person  to  said  Assembly  at  the  time  and  Place  prefixed 
there  to  advise  and  counsult  with  us  touching  the  important 
affairs  of  our  Province 

Given  at  St.  Marys  the  i8th  January,  1638. 

(These  were  sent  to  four  others.) 


Caecilius  Lord  Proprietory  &ca  to  our  trusty  Ricd  Garnett 
Senior  Richard  Lusthead  Anum  Benum  Henry  Bishop 
Joseph  Edlo  Lewis  Freeman  and  any  other  the  Freemen  in- 
habiting at  Mattapanient  Greeting  whereas  we  have  ap- 
pointed to  hold  a  General  Assembly ,of  the  Freemen  of  our 
Province  at  our  Fort  of  S1  Marys  On  the  five  and  twentieth 
day  of  this  instant  month  of  February  these  are  therefore  to 
will  and  require  you  that  to-morrow  or  on  thursday  next  at 
the  furthest  between  one  and  two  of  the  clock  in  the  after- 
noon you  &  every  one  of  you  be  at  Our  Secretarys  house  at 
Sl  Johns  there  to  make  such  nomination  and  Election  of 
your  Burgesses  for  that  manner  or  division  of  Mattapanient 
for  this  next  Assembly  as  you  shall  think  fitt  hereof  fail  not 
you  Perill  given  at  S*  Maries  this  IIth  of  February  1638. 

(The  like  were  sent  to  the  freemen  of  three  other  hun- 
dreds.) 


248 


APPENDICES. 


Returns  were  made  in  this  form:  — 
14*   February  1638 

Memd  that  this  day  came  before  me  Richard  Garnett 
Senior,  Richard  Lusthead,  Annum  Benum  Henry  Bishop, 
Joseph  Edlo  Lewis  Freeman  &  Rob1  Wiseman  and  chose  for 
the  Burgess  of  the  hundred  of  Mattapanient  Henry  Bishop 
and  have  Given  unto  him  full  and  free  Power  for  them  and 
for  every  of  them  to  be  present  in  their  names  at  the  next  As- 
sembly as  their  Burgess  or  deputy  and  in  witness  thereof 
have  hereunto  set  their  hands. 

The  mark  of  RICHARD  +  GARNETT 
The  mark  of  RICHARD  +  LUSTHEAD 
The  mark  of  JOSEPH  +  EDLO 

ROBERT  WISEMAN 
The  mark  of  ANUM  -f  BENUM 
The  mark  of  LEWIS  +  FREEMAN 
(Similarly  for  other  hundreds.) 


Writs  for  election  of  Burgesses  for  Oct.  I2th,  164.6? 

Writ. 

Caecilius  &ca  to  all  the  freemen  of  our  hundred  of  St  Marys 
Greeting  we  do  hereby  summon  you  to  be  before  our  Secre- 
tary at  Saint  Johns  on  tuesday  next  at  One  of  the  clock  after 
dinner  to  make  election  of  one  or  two  Burgesses  for  that  hun- 
dred for  the  next  Assembly.  Given  at  Saint  Marys  12th 
Septr  1640. 

Return.'2 

15th  September  1640. 

The  freemen  of  Saint  Marys  hundred  chose  for  their  Bur- 
gesses the  next  Assembly  Mr  Secretary  &  Mr  Greene. 

coram  me  JOHN  LEWGER  Secretary. 
(Similar  writs  and  returns  for  other  hundreds.)3 

1  Maryland  State  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  87.       2  Ibid.,  88. 
3  Other  Warrants:  ibid.  114,  lit;,  121,  369,  381,  382. 


APPENDICES. 


249 


I6591 

January  12th 

Caecilius  absolute  Lord  and  Proprietary  of  the  Province 
of  Maryland  and  Avalon  Lord  Barren  of  Baltimore  &c.  To 
the  Sheriffe  of  Saint  Maryes  County  Greeting  Whereas  by 
the  advice  and  consent  of  our  Councell  We  haue  determined 
to  hould  an  Assembly  of  the  ffreemen  of  our  Province  at 
Mr  Thomas  Gerrards  on  the  last  Tuesday  in  ffebruary  next 
ensuing  there  to  consider  of  certaine  things  concerning  the 
State  and  welfare  of  this  our  Province  of  Maryland  Wee 
command  you,  Nicholas  Guyther  Sheriffe  of  St  Maryes 
County  that  makeing  Proclamation  as  soone  as  conveniently 
may  be  after  the  receipt  of  this  writt  you  cause  fower  dis- 
creete  Burgesses  to  be  elected  to  serve  the  said  Assembly 
there  to  doe  and  consent  to  such  things  as  by  coinon  con- 
sent shall  happen  to  be  ordained  and  enacted  in  the  buisness 
aforesaid  so  that  through  want  of  sufficient  power  or  incon- 
siderat  election  of  the  aforesaid  Burgessses  the  buisnesses 
aforesaid  may  not  remaine  vndon  or  neglected,  and  make 
your  retourn  of  this  Writt  into  the  Secretaries  Office  by  the 
Seventeenth  of  ffebruary  next  Given  at  Saint  Maryes  vnder 
our  Create  Scale  of  our  said  Province  of  Maryland  the  twelfth 
day  of  January  in  the  Eight  &  twentieth  yeare  of  our  Do- 
minion over  the  said  Province  Annoque  Domini  One  thou- 
sand Six  hundred  ffifty  Nyne.2 


C : — Absolute  Lord  and  Proprietor  of  the  Provinces  of 
Maryland  &  Avalon  Lord  Baron  of  Baltimore  to  the  Sheriffe 
of  A:  Greeting  these  are  to  authorize  and  require  you  ime- 
diately  upon  receipt  hereof  to  call  together  four  or  more  of 
the  comissioners  of  your  County  with  the  Clerke  who  are 
hereby  required  to  sitt  as  a  Court  and  dureing  their  sitting 

1  Maryland  State  Archives,  I  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  381. 

*  Other  Returns:  ibid,  28,  29,  88,  89,  104,  105, 128,  129,  260,  382,  396. 


250 


APPENDICES. 


by  virtue  of  your  office  to  make  or  cause  to  be  made  Publick 
Proclamation  thereby  giveing*  notice  to  all  the  freeman  of 
your  said  County  who  have  within  your  said  County  a  free- 
hold of  fifty  acres  of  land  or  a  visible  personall  estate  of  forty 
pounds  starling  att  least  Requireing  them  to  appeare  at  the 
next  County  Court  to  be  holden  for  your  County  att  a  cer- 
taine  day  within  a  reasonable  time  after  such  Proclamation 
made  for  the  electing  &  chuseing  of  Deputyes  and  Delegates 
to  serve  for  your  County  in  a  Generall  Assembly  to  be 
holden  att  the  citty  of  S*  Marye's  the  day  of  at 
which  time  of  Proclamation  aforesaid  the  said  freemen  so  re- 
quired to  appeare  or  the  major  part  of  such  of  them  as  shall 
then  appeare  shall  and  may  and  are  hereby  authorized  and 
required  to  Elect  and  Chuse  four  severall  &  sufficient  freemen 
of  your  County  each  of  them  having  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres 
of  land  or  a  visible  personall  estate  of  forty  pounds  starling 
att  least  within  your  County  and  you  shall  give  authority  to 
each  of  them  severally  and  respectively  by  four  severall  and 
respective  indentures  under  their  hands  and  scales  to  be 
Deputyes  and  Delegates  for  your  County  and  to  appear  and 
serve  as  Deputyes  and  Delegates  for  your  County  att  the 
said  next  Generall  Assembly  to  doe  and  consent  to  those 
things  which  then  by  the  favour  of  God  shall  there  happen 
to  be  ordained  by  the  Lord  Proprietary  by  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  great  Councell  of  this  Province  concerning 
such  occasions  and  affairs  as  shall  relate  to  the  government 
state  &  defence  of  this  Province  but  wee  will  not  in  any  case 
that  you  or  any  other  sheriffe  in  our  said  Province  be  elected 
which  said  indentures  shall  be  between  you  the  Sheriffe  of 
the  one  part  and  the  said  freemen  Electing  on  the  other  part 
and  shall  beare  date  the  same  day  upon  which  the  said  elec- 
tion shall  be  made  and  shall  mention  the  time  and  place  of 
such  election  and  the  persons  soe  elected  and  shall  be  signed 
and  sealed  each  part  of  their  as  well  by  you  the  sheriffe  as 


APPENDICES. 


251 


by  the  said  freemen  by  whom  the  said  election  shall  be  made 
and  that  upon  such  election  you  the  Sheriffe  shall  soe  soon 
as  conveniently  may  be  certifie  and  transmitt  to  the  Chan- 
cellor of  this  Province  for  the  time  being  one  part  of  the  said 
severall  and  respective  Indentures  close  sealed  up  under 
your  hand  &  scale  and  directed  to  the  Lord  Proprietary  of 
this  Province  and  alsoe  to  the  said  Chancellor  &  the  other 
part  of  the  said  Indentures  you  are  to  keepe  for  your  Justi- 
fication wittness  our  selfe  at  our  Citty  of  St.  Marye's  &cal. 


ANNE  by  the  grace  of  God  of  England  Scotland  France 
and  Ireland  Queen  Defender  of  the  faith  &c.  To  the  Sheriff 
of  A  County  Greeting  These  are  to  authorize  and  em- 
power you  immediately  upon  receipt  hereof  to  call  together 
four  or  more  Commissioners  of  your  County  with  the  Clerk 
who  are  hereby  required  to  sitt  as  a  Court  and  during  the 
sitting  by  virtue  of  your  office  to  make  or  cause  to  be  made 
publicq  proclamation  thereby  giving  notice  to  all  the  free- 
men of  your  said  County  who  have  Within  your  said  County 
a  freehold  of  fifty  acres  of  land  or  a  visible  estate  of  forty 
pounds  sterl.  at  the  least  requiring  them  to  appear  at  the 
next  County  Court  to  be  holden  for  your  County  at  a  cer- 
tain day  within  a  reasonable  time  after  such  proclamation 
made  for  electing  and  choosing  of  Deputys  and  Delegates 
to  serve 'for  your  County  in  a  Generall  Assembly  to  be 
holden  at  the  port  of  Annapolis  the  day  of  at 
which  time  of  proclamation  aforesaid  the  said  freemen  so 
required  to  appear  or  the  major  part  of  such  of  them  as  shall 
then  appear  shall  and  may  and  are  hereby  authorized  and 
required  to  elect  and  choose  four  severall  and  sufficient  free- 
men of  your  County  each  of  them  having  a  freehold  of  fifty 
acres  of  land  or  visible  estate  of  forty  pound  sterl.  at  the 
least  within  your  County  and  you  shall  give  to  each  of  them 

'Act  of  1678,  Maryland  Archives,  3  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  60.  The 
writ  given  in  the  act  of  4  Will,  and  Mary,  chap.  76,  is  similar,  mutatis  mutandis. 


252 


APPENDICES. 


severally  and  respectively  by  four  severall  and  respective 
Indentures  under  their  hands  and  seals  to  be  Deputys  and 
Delegates  for  your  County  at  the  said  next  Generall  As- 
sembly to  do  and  consent  to  those  things  which  then  by  the 
favour  of  God  shall  happen  to  be  ordained  by  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  great  Councill  of  this  province  concern- 
ing such  occasions  and  affaires  as  shall  relate  to  the  Gov- 
ernment State  and  defence  of  this  province  But, we  will 
not  in  any  case  that  you  or  any  other  sheriff  in  our  said 
province  be  elected.  Which  said  Indentures  shall  be  be- 
tween you  the  said  sheriff  of  the  one  part  and  the  said 
freemen  electing  of  the  other  part  and  shall  bear  date  the 
same  day  upon  which  the  said  election  shall  be  made  and 
that  upon  such  election  you  the  said  Sheriff  shall  so  soon  as 
conveniently  may  be  certify  and  transmitt  to  the  Chancelour 
of  this  province  for  the  time  being  one  part  of  the  said 
severall  and  respective  Indentures  close  sealed  up  under 
your  hand  and  scale  and  directed  to  the  Governour  of  this 
province  and  also  to  the  Chancellour  and  the  other  part  of 
the  said  Indentures  you  are  to  keep  for  your  justification. 
Witness  our  trusty  and  .well  beloved  John  Seymour  Esq. 
our  Cap*  and  Chief  Governour  of  this  our  province  at 
Annapolis  &C.1 


GEORGE  by  the  grace  of  God  of  Great  Brittain,  France  and 
Ireland  King  Defender  of  the  faith  &c.  &c.  To  the  sher'f 
of  County  Greeting.  These  are  to  command  authorize 

and  empower  you  imediately  upon  receipt  hereof  to  call 
together  three  or  more  Justices  of  your  County  whereof  one 
to  be  of  the  Quorum  with  the  Clerk  of  the  County  Court 
who  are  hereby  required  to  sit  as  a  Court  and  dureing  their 
sitting  by  vertue  of  your  office  to  make  or  cause  to  be  made 
Publick  Proclamation  thereby  giveing  notice  to  all  the  free- 

J4  Anne,  chap.  35;   Baskett  ed.,  1723,  121. 


APPENDICES.  253 

men  of  your  said  County  who  have  within  the  said  County  a 
freehold  of  fifty  acres  of  land  who  shall  be  residents  and  have 
a  vissiable  Estate  of  forty  pounds  sterling  at  the  least  therein 
requireing  them  to  appear  at  your  County  Court  house  at  a 
certaine  time  not  lees  than  ten  days  after  such  proclamation 
made  for  electing  and  chooseing  depty5  and  delegates  to 
serve  for  your  said  County  in  a  General!  Assembly  to  be 
holden  at  the  day  of  to  which  time  you  shall  adjourn  your 
said  Court  and  dureing  the  Courts  sitting  the  said  freemen 
so  required  to  appear  or  the  major  part  of  such  of  them  as 
shall  then  appear  shall  and  may  and  are  hereby  authorized 
and  required  to  elect  and  choose  four  severall  and  sufficient 
freemen  of  your  County  each  of  them  having  a  freehold  of 
fifty  acres  of  Land  or  who  shall  be  a  resident  and  have  a 
vissiable  estate  of  forty  pounds  sterling  at  the  least  within 
your  County  whether  the  partys  so'  elected  be  present  or 
absent,  the  said  election  to  be  made  in  such  manner  and 
forme  as  ye  laws  of  England  and  this  province  doe  di- 
rect and  provide  and  you  are  to  insert  the  names  of  the 
said  persons  elected  in  certain  Indentures  to  be  then  made 
between  you  the  said  Sheriff  and  the  Electors  (that  is  to 
say)  two  Indentures  for  each  Delegate  each  Indenture  have- 
ing  thereto  your  hand  and  scale  and  the  hands  and  scales  of 
the  severall  Electors  by  them  subscribed  that  the  said  Depts 
and  delegates  for  themselves  and  the  County  afd  may  have 
severally  full  and  suff*  power  to  do  and  consent  to  those 
things  which  then  and  there  by  the  favour  of  God  shall 
happen  to  be  ordained  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Great  Councill  of  this  Province  concerning  such  occasion 
and  affairs  as  shall  relate  to  the  Government  state  and  de- 
fence thereof.  But  we  will  not  in  anywise  that  you  or  any 
other  Sherr'  in  our  said  Province  be  elected  and  that  upon 
election  you  the  said  sherr'  so  soon  as  conveniently  may  be 
give  notice  to  the  parties  elected  if  absent  and  certifie  and 


254 


APPENDICES. 


transmit  to  the  Chancellor  of  this  province  for  the  time  being 
one  of  the  two  severall  and  respective  Indentures  affixed  to 
these  presents  close  sealed  up  and  Directed  to  the  Chancellor 
of  this  province  for  the  time  being  and  the  other  part  of  the 
said  Indentures  you  are  to  keep  for  your  Justification  WIT- 
NESS &c.1 

VIRGINIA. 

No  particular  form  is  prescribed  for  the  writs,  but  each 
sheriff  or  his  deputy  is  required  to  endorse  his  return  upon 
the  back  in  the  following  form : 

"BY  vertue  of  this  writt  I  have  caused  to  be  legally  sum- 
moned the  freeholders  of  my  county  to  meet  this  day  being 
the  day  of  at  the  court  house  of  this  county  being  the 
usuall  place  for  election  of  burgesses  and  have  given  them  in 
charge  to  make  election  of  two  of  the  most  able  and  discreet 
persons  of  the  said  county  for  theire  burgesses,  who  accord- 
ingly have  elected  and  chosen  A  B  and  C  D  burgesses  for  the 
said  county  for  the  next  generall  assembly  to  be  held  at 
the  day  of 

A  later  act  required  the  return  to  be  made  as  follows : 

Upon  the  writ  are  to  be  endorsed  the  words : 

"  The  execution  of  this  writ  appears  in  a  certain  schedule 
hereto  annexed." 

The  schedule  is  to  be  in  the  following  iorm,  mtttatis  mu- 
tandis, viz. : 

"  By  virtue  of  this  writ  to  me  directed,  in  my  full  county 
held  at  the  court  house  of  my  said  county,  upon  the  day 
of  in  the  year  of  the  reign  of  ,  by  the  grace  of 

God  of  England,  Scotland,  France  and  Ireland,  Queen :  de- 
fender of  the  faith  &c.,  by  the  assent  of  my  said  county  1 

1  8  Geo.  I,  chap.  42.     See  Appendix  B,  post. 
*  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening  172. 


APPENDICES. 

have  caused  to  be  chosen  (two  Burgesses)  of  my  said 
county,  to  wit,  A  B  and  C  D,  to  act  and  do  as  in  the  said 
writ  is  directed  and  required." 

For  a  town  or  for  the  college  of  William  and  Mary,  the 
return  is  to  be  made  in  this  form : 

"By  virtue  of  this  writ,  to  me  directed,  I  did  make  lawful 
publication  thereof ;  and  afterwards,  to  wit,  upon  the  day  of 
in  the  year  of  the  reign  of  by  the  grace  of 

God,  of  England,  Scotland,  France,  and  Ireland,  Queen,  de- 
fender of  the  faith  (at  the  said  town  of  )  or  (at  the  said 
college)  by  the  assent  of  the  (freeholders)  or  (President, 
and  Masters  or  Professors)  thereof,  I  have  caused  to  be 
chosen  one  Burgess  for  the -said  (town)  or  (College)  to  wit 
AB  of  to  act  and  do  as  in  the  said  writ  is  directed  and 
required."  ' 

II.  OATHS. 

§  i .  Freemen  and  Electors. 

NEW   PLYMOUTH. 
Oath  of  a  Freeman? 

You  shall  be  truly  loyall  to  [our  Sov.  Lord  King  Charles 
his  heirs  and  successors  (the  State  and  Govern1  of  England 
as  it  now  stands — ]3  You  shall  not  speake  or  doe,  devise  or 
advise  any  thing  or  things  act  or  acts  directly  or  indirectly 
by  land  or  water,  that  doth  shall  or  may  tend  to  the  de- 
struccon  or  over  throw  of  this  prnt  plantacons  Colonies  or 
Corporacon  of  New  Plymouth,  Neither  shall  you  suffer  the 
same  to  be  spoken  or  done  but  shall  hinder  oppose  &  dis- 
cover the  same  to  the  Govr  &  assistants  of  the  said  Colony 

1 4  Anne,  chap.  2,  §  7,  3  Hening,  236. 

2 1 1  Plymouth  Colonial  Records,  8 ;  Brigham,  38.  A  similar  oath  is  given  in  1 1 
Plymouth  Colonial  Records,  80. 

3  The  passage  in  brackets  is  erased  in  the  original  document. 


256  APPENDICES. 

for  the  time  being  or  some  one  of  them.  You  shall  faithfully 
submit  unto  such  good  &  wholsome  laws  &  ordinances  as 
either  are  or  shall  be  made  for  the  ordering  &  govrnm*  of 
the  same,  and  shall  endeavor  to  advance  the  growth  &  good 
of  the  severall  plantations  wthin  the  limit  of  this  corporacon 
by  all  due  meanes  &  courses.  All  wch  you  promise  &  sweare 
by  the  name  of  the  great  God  of  heaven  &  earth  simply  truly 
&  faithfully  to  pforme  as  you  hope  for  help  fro  God  who  is 
the  God  of  truth  &  punisher  of  falsehood. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 
Oath  of  Fidelity? 

I  A  B  being  by  God's  providence  an  Inhabitant  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Commonwealth  do  freely  and  sincerely 
acknowledge  my  self  to  be  subject  to  the  Government 
thereof  And  do  here  swear  by  the  great  and  dreadfull  name 
of  the  Ever  living  God,  that  I  will  be  true  and  faithfull  to  the 
same,  and  will  accordingly  yeild  assistance  thereunto,  with 
my  person  and  estate  as  in  equity  I  am  bound  :  And  will  also 
truely  endeavour  to  Maintain  and  preserve  all  the  Liberties 
and  Priviledges  thereof,  submitting  my  self  unto  the  whole- 
som  Laws  made  and  established  by  the  same. 

And  farther  that  I  will  not  plot  or  practice  any  evill 
against  it  or  consent  to  any  that  shall  so  do  but  will  timely 
discover  and  reveal  the  same  to  lawfull  Authority  now  here 
established,  for  the  speedy  preventing  thereof.  So  help  me 
God  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Oath  of  a  Freeman? 

I,  A  B  being  by  God's  Providence  an  Inhabitant  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  commonwealth  and  now  to  be  made 
free ;  doe  here  freely  acknowledg  my  self  to  be  subject  to 

1  Laws,  ed.  1660,  84. 

2  Laws,  ed.  1 660,  84 ;    I  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  117. 


APPENDICES.  257 

the  Government  thereof :  and  therefore  do  hear  Swear  by  the 
great  and  dreadfull  Name  of  the  Everliving  God,  that  I  will 
be  true  and  faithfull  to  the  same,  and  will  accordingly  yeild 
assistance  and  support  thereunto,  with  my  person  and  estate 
as  in  equity  I  am  bound,  and  will  also  truely  endeavour  to 
maintain  and  preserve  all  the  Liberties  and  Priviledges 
thereof  submitting  my  self  unto  the  wholesome  Laws  made 
and  established  by  the  same.  And  farther,  that  I  will  not 
plot  or  practice  any  evill  against  it  or  consent  that  any  shall 
so  do ;  but  will  timely  discover  and  reveal  the  same  to  law- 
full  authority  now  here  established  for  the  speedy  prevention 
thereof. 

Moreover  I  do  solemnly  bind  my  self  in  the  sight  of  God, 
that  when  I  shall  be  called  to  give  my  voice  touching  any 
such  matter  of  this  State,  wherein  Free-men  are  to  deal ;  I 
will  give  my  vote  and  suffrage  as  I  shall  in  mine  own  con- 
science judg  best  to  conduce  and  tend  to  the  publick  weal 
of  the  Body  without  respect  of  persons  or  favour  of  any  man. 
So  help  me  God  &c 

RHODE   ISLAND. 

During  the  earlier  years  of  Rhode  Island,  the  newly 
chosen  officers  "  engaged "  themselves  by  taking  an  oath. 
The  freemen  then  took  the  following  "  Reciprocal  Engage- 
ment" which  falls  perhaps  under  the  category  of  an  oath  of 
allegiance  or  of  fidelity  rather  than  of  an  elector : 

"  We  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Province  of  Providence  Plan- 
tations being  here  orderly  met,  and  having  by  free  vote 
chosen  you  to  public  office  and  officers  for  the  due  adminis- 
tration of  justice  and  the  execution  thereof  throughout  the 
whole  Colonie  do  hereby  engage  ourselves  to  the  utmost  of 
our  power  to  support  and  uphold  you  in  your  faithfull  per- 
formance thereof."1 

1  i  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  150. 


258  APPENDICES. 

Oath  to  be  taken  by  electors 
YOU  AB,  sollemly  and  sincearly  engage  true  and  faithfull 
aleagiance  vnto  his  Majesteye  Charles  the  Second,  King  of 
England,  his  heirs  and  successors,  to  beare  and  due  obedi- 
ance  vnto  the  lawes  established,  from  time  to  time  in  this 
jurisdiction  to  yeald  vnto  the  utmost  of  your  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  previlidge  by  his  said  Majesty  granted,  in  religious 
and  civill  concearnments  to  this  collony  in  the  charter; 
which  said  engagment  you  make  under  the  perrill  and 
penalty  of  perjury. 

Oath  required  on  admission  as  freemen  or  at  the  time  of  voting? 
You  AB  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  That  you  have 
not,  nor  will  not  receive  any  money  or  other  reward,  nor  any 
promise  of  Money  or  any  other  thing,  by  which  you  may 
expect  any  money  or  future  reward,  at  the  Election  of  any 
o'fficer  to  be  chosen  in  this  colony ;  and  that  you  will  not 
bargain  or  contract  with  any  person,  directly  or  indirectly, 
contrary  to  the  true  meaning  of  this  Oath  (or  affirmation)  ; 
but  that  you  will  use  your  freedom  for  the  Good  of  the 
Government  only,  without  any  other  Motive.  And  this 
Declaration  you  make  without  any  Evasion,  Equivocation  or 
Mental  Reservation  whatsoever. 

Oath  reqtiired  of  those  suspected  of  receiving  or  making 
fraudulent  conveyances  in  order  to  multiply  or  create  votes:* 

You,  AB,  do  solemnly  swear  that  you  are  really  and  truly 
possessed  in  your  own  Right  of  the  estate  of  which  a  Con- 
veyance is  made  you  by  CD  according  to  the  Tenor  of  the 
said  Conveyance ;  and  that  you  now  hold  and  improve  the 
same  to  your  Use,  Benefit  and  Behoof,  and  that  you  have 
not  given  any  promise  or  assurance  of  any  nature  or  kind 

1  2  Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  112.     22O  Geo.  II,  Franklin  ed.,  1752,  13. 
'Hall's  Code,  1767,  Title  Elections,  78. 


APPENDICES. 


259 


whatsoever,  that  you  will  reconvey  said  estate  to  the  said  CD 
or  any  Person  in  his  Behalf.  And  this  Declaration  you 
make  without  any  Evasion,  Equivocation,  or  Mental  Reserva- 
tion whatsoever. 

NEW   HAVEN. 

Oath  of  a  Freeman^  (1639.) 

Yow  shall  neither  plott,  practise  nor  consent  to  any  evill 
or  hurt  against  this  Jurisdiction,  or  any  pte  of  it,  or  against 
the  civill  gouernment  here  established.  And  if  you  shall 
know  any  pson,  or  psons  wch  intend,  plott  or  conspire  any 
thing  wch  tends  to  the  hurt  or  prejudice  of  the  same,  yow 
shall  timely  discouer  the  same  to  lawfull  authority  here 
established,  and  yow  shall  assist  and  bee  helpfull  in  all  the 
affaires  of  the  Jurisdiction,  and  by  all  meanes  shall  promove 
the  publique  wellfare  of  the  same,  according  to  yor  place, 
ability,  and  opptunity,  yow  shall  give  due  honnor  to  the 
lawfull  magistrats,  and  shall  be  obedient  and  subject  to  all 
the  wholesome  lawes  and  orderes,  allready  made,  or  \vch 
shall  be  hereafter  made,  by  lawfull  authority  afforesaid. 
And  that  both  in  yor  pson  and  estate ;  and  when  yow  shall 
be  duely  called  to  give  yor  vote  or  suffrage  in  any  election 
or  touching  any  other  matter  which  concerneth  this  com- 
mon wealth  yow  shall  give  it  as  in  yor  conscience  yow  shall 
judg  may  conduce  to  the  best  good  of  the  same. 

Oath  of  fidelity  administered  to  all  freemen? 
I  A  B  being  by  the  providence  of  God  an  inhabitant 
within  Newhaven  jurisdictio,  doe  acknowledge  myselfe  to  be 
subject  to  the  governm*  thereof,  and  doe  sweare  be  the  great 
and  dreadfull  name  of  the  everliving  God,  to  be  true  and 
faithfull  vnto  the  same,  and  doe  submitt  both  my  person  and 
my  whole  estate  therevnto  according  to  all  the  wholsome 

1  I  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  19.  J  Ibid.,  137. 


26o  APPENDICES. 

lawes  and  orders  thatt  for  present  are  or  hereafter  shall  be 
there  made  and  established  by  lawful  authority  and  thatt  I 
will  neither  plott  nor  practise  any  evill  agst  the  same,  nor 
consent  to  any  thatt  should  so  doe,  butt  will  timely  discover 
the  same  to  lawfull  authority  here  established,  and  thatt  I 
will  as  I  am  in  duety  bounde,  maintaine  the  honor  of  the 
same  and  off  the  lawfull  magistrates  thereoff,  promoting  the 
publique  good  of  the  same  whilest  I  shall  continue  an  in- 
habitant there.  And  whensoever  I  shall  be  duely  called  as 
a  freeburgesse  according  to  the  fundamentall  order  and 
agreem*  for  governm*  in  this  jurisdictio  to  give  my  vote  or 
suffrage  touching  any  matter  which  concerneth  this  Como- 
wealth,  I  will  give  itt  as  in  my  conscience  I  shall  judge  may 
conduce  to  the  best  good  of  the  same  wlhout  respect  of  per- 
sons, so  help  me  God  &c.1 

CONNECTICUT. 

The  oath  of  a  Hartford  freeman  was  almost  precisely  like 
that  required  in  New  Haven.2 

After  1703  the  following  oath  was  prescribed:3 
You,  A  B,  being  by  the  providence  of  God  an  inhabi- 
tant within  this  her  majesties  Colony  of  Connecticut,  and 
now  to  be  made  free  of  the  same,  DO  swear  by  the  Ever 
living  God,  that  you  will  be  true  and  faithful  to  her  Majesty 
Queen  Anne,  (and  to  her  lawful  Successors,)  and  to  the 
Government  of  Her  Majesties  said  Colony  as  Established  by 
Charter.  And  whensoever  you  shall  give  your  Vote  or 
Suffrage  touching  any  matter  which  concerns  this  colony, 
being  called  thereunto,  you  will  give  it,  as  in  your  conscience 

'The  London  Edition  of  the  laws  (1656)  contains  an  oath  made  up  of 
sentences  taken  from  each  of  the  preceding  oaths  (2  New  Haven  Colonial 
Records,  616). 

*  See  I  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  63.     Laws,  ed.  1653,  Title  Oaths,  53. 

8  Session  Laws,  ed.  1 754,  45. 


APPENDICES.  26l 

you  shall  judge  may  conduce  to  the  best  good  of  the  same 
without  respect  of  persons,  or  Favor  of  any  Man.  So  HELP 
YOU  GOD. 

NEW   YORK. 

General  Oath  to  be  taken  by  every  voter,  if  required? 

You  shall  swear  that  you  are  a  freeholder  of  the  County 
of  and  have  improved  Land  or  Tenement  to  the 

Value  of  forty  pounds,  lying  at  within  the  said 

county  of  Freehold :  And  that  you  have  not  been 

before  Polled  at  this  Election,  nor  have  you  procured  this 
freehold  to  give  your  Voice  in  this  election.  So  HELP  YOU 
GOD.2 

In  New  York  city  elections  one  of  the  following  oaths 
must  be  taken  by  every  voter,  according  to  his  status,  if  re- 
quired by  a  candidate  or  an  officer  ::f 

Freeholder's  Oath. 

You  shall  swear,  or  affirm,  that  you  are  a  Freeholder  in 
the  Ward  in  which  you  now  offer  to  vote,  and  have  Lands  or 
Tenements  to  the  Value  of  Forty  Pounds  lying  in  the  said 
Ward ;  that  you  do  not  hold  the  same  in  Trust  for  any  Body 
Politic  or  Corporate,  or  for  any  pious  or  religious  Use  what- 
soever, and  that  you  have  possessed  the  same  for  one  Month 
next  before  the  day  of  this  Election  (except  he  has  his 
Freehold  by  Descent  or  devise),  and  that  you  have  not  been 
before  polled  at  this  Election  nor  have  you  procured  this 
Freehold  under  any  obligation  or  Promise  to  reconvey  the 
same  to  the  Seller  after  this  Election.  So  HELP  YOU  GOD. 

1 II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  74,  §  14,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  28. 

2  Part  of  this  oath  is  taken  from  the  English  statute  of  7  and  8  Will.  Ill,  chap. 
25- 

3  1 1  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  1492,  Van  Schaack's  Laws,  620. 


262  APPENDICES. 

Freeman 's  Oath. 

You  do  swear  or  affirm  that  you  are  a  Freeman  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  and  have  been  so  for  three  months  now 
last  past,  and  have  actually  resided  in  the  Ward  in  which  you 
now  offer  to  vote,  one  Month  next  before  the  Day  of  this 
election,  and  that  you  have  not  been  before  polled  at  this 
Election.  So  HELP  YOU  GOD. 

NEW  JERSEY. 

Oath  to  be  taken  by  electors.1 

I  A  B  do  in  the  presence  of  God,  Declare  and  Swear,  That 
I  am  and  have  been  a  freeholder  and  Resident  in  this  County, 
City  or  Town,  One  whole  Year,  and  that  the  Estate  for  which 
I  claim  to  give  my  Votes  in  this  Election,  is  my  proper 
estate  and  that  it  is  not  conveyed  to  me  in  Trust,  or  on  Con- 
dition that  I  shall  give  my  vote  in  this  Election  for  any 
person. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

If  required  by  any  inspector,  an  elector  was  bound  to  de- 
clare upon  his  solemn  affirmation,2  "  That  he  is  Twenty-one 
Years  of  age  and  a  Freeholdenfor  the  County  of  and 

has  fifty  acres  of  land  or  more,  well  seated  and  twelve  Acres 
thereof  or  more  cleared ;  OR,  that  he  is  otherways  worth 
Fifty  Pounds,  Money  of  this  Province,  clear  Estate,  and  hath 
been  resident  therein  for  the  Space  of  two  years  and  that 
he  has  not  before  been  polled  at  that  Election." 

When  the  system  of  regularly  elected  inspectors  came  into 
effect,  an  oath  or  affirmation  was  necessary  unless  the  quali- 
fication of  a  voter  was  generally  known,  "  or  some  one  or 
more  of  the  inspectors  shall  or  will  openly  declare  as  to  the 

1 12  Geo.  I,  chap.  40,  Nevill's  Laws,  142. 
2  4  Anne,  chap.  129,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  67. 


APPENDICES. 


263 


rest  that  they  know  such  elector  to  be  qualified  as  afore- 
said."1 

MARYLAND. 

All  Papists  or  persons  suspected  of  being  such  must  take 
the  following  oaths  before  being  permitted  to  vote.2 

Allegiance.  I  A  B  do  sincerely  promise  and  swear  that  I 

will  be  faithful  and  bear  true  allegiance  to  his  Majesty  King 
George.  So  HELP  ME  GOD. 

Abhorrence.  I  A  B  do  swear,  That  I  from  my  Heart  ab- 

hor, detest  and  abjure  as  impious  and  heretical,  that  Damn- 
able Doctrine  and  Position  That  Princes  excommunicated 
or  deprived  by  the  Pope  or  any  Authority  of  the  See  of 
Rome  may  be  deposed  and  murthered  by  their  subjects  or 
any  other  whatsoever.  And  I  declare  That  no  foreign  Prince 
Person  Prelate  State  or  Potentate  hath  or  ought  to  have 
Jurisdiction,  Power,  Superiority,  Preeminence,  or  authority, 
Ecclesiastical  or  Spiritual  within  the  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  or  any  of  the  Dominions  thereunto  belonging.  So 
HELP  ME  GOD. 

Abjuration.  I  A  B  do  truly  and   sincerely  acknowledge, 

profess,  testify  and  declare  in  my  conscience  before  God 
and  the  world,  That  our  Sovereign  Lord  King  George  is  law- 
fully and  rightfully  King  of  the  Realm  of  Great  Britain  and 
all  other  the  Dominions  and  countries  thereunto  belonging. 
And  I  do  solemnly  and  sincerely  declare  that  I  do  believe 
in  my  conscience  that  the  person  pretended  to  be  the  Prince 
of  Wales,  during  the  life  time  of  the  late  King  James,  and 
since  his  decease  pretending  to  be  and  taking  upon  himself 
the  Stile  and  Title  of  King  of  England  by  the  name  of  James 
the  Third,  or  of  Scotland  by  the  Name  of  James  the  Eighth, 
or  the  Stile  and  Title  of  King  of  Great  Britain  hath  not  any 

1  13  Geo.  I,  chap.  284,  Franklin  ed.,  1742,  346. 

*  3  Charles  Lord  B.,  chap,  i ;   I  Chas.  Lord  B.,  .chap.  5,  Bacon's  Laws, 


264  APPENDICES. 

Right  or  Title  whatsoever  to  the  Crown  of  the  Realm  of 
Great  Britain  or  any  other  the  Dominions  thereto  belong- 
ing. And  I  do  renounce  refuse  and  abjure  any  Allegiance 
or  Obedience  to  him.  And  I  do  swear  that  I  will  bear  Faith 
and  True  allegiance  to  his  Majesty  King  George  and  him 
will  defend  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  against  all  traitrous 
Conspiracies  and  Attempts  whatsoever  which  shall  be  made 
against  his  Person  Crown  or  Dignity,  and  I  will  do  my 
utmost  Endeavor  to  disclose  and  make  known  to  his  Majesty 
and  his  successors  all  Treasons  and  traitrous  Conspiracies 
which  I  shall  know  to  be  against  him  or  any  of  them.  And 
I  do  faithfully  promise  to  the  utmost  of  my  Power  to  sup- 
port maintain  and  defend  the  Succession  of  the  Crown  against 
him  the  said  James,  and  all  other  Persons  whatsoever, 
which  Succession  by  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  further 
Limitation  of  the  Crown,  and  better  securing  the  Rights  and 
Liberties  of  the  Subject"  is  and  stands  limited  to  the  Prin- 
cess Sophia,  Electress  and  Dutchess  Dowager  of  Hanover 
and  the  Heirs  of  her  body  being  Protestants.  And  these 
things  I  do  plainly  and  sincerely  acknowledge  and  swear, 
according  to  these  express  words  by  me  spoken  and  accord- 
ing to  the  plain  and  common  Sense  and  understanding  of  the 
same  Words,  without  any  Equivocation,  mental  Evasion  or 
secret  Reservation  whatsoever.  And  I  do  make  this  Recog- 
nition, Acknowledgment,  Abjuration,  Renunciation  and 
Promise,  heartily  willingly  and  truly  upon  the  true  Faith  of 
a  Christian.  So  HELP  ME  GOD. 

Test.  I  A  B  do  declare,  That  I  do  believe  there  is 

not  any  Trans-substantiation  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  or  in  the  Elements  of  Bread  and  Wine  at  or  after 
the  Consecration  thereof  by  any  person  whatsoever. 


APPENDICES. 


265 


VIRGINIA. 

Oath  to  be  taken  by  voters  upon  request  of  any  freeholder?- 

You  shall  swear  that  you  are  bona   fide  a  freeholder  in 
this  county  of  or  towne  of  to   the  best  of  your 

knowledge. 

In  case  the  elector  were  a  Quaker,  the  following  declara- 
tion must  be  first  made : 

I,  A  B,  do  declare  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the 
witness  of  the  truth  of  what  I  say. 

After  1705,  this  oath  was  required  of  all  voters:2 

You  shall  swear  that  you  are  a  freeholder  of  the  county 
of  and  that  you  have  not  been  before  polled  at  this 

election. 

Thirty-one  years  later  the  following  oath  must  be  taken  if 
required  :3 

You  shall  swear,  That  you  are  a  freeholder  in  the  county 
of  and  have  at  least  one  hundred  acres  of  freehold 

lands  unseated,  lying  and  being  in  the  parish  of  in 

the  county  of  in  your  sole   possession   or  in   the 

possession  of  your  tenant  or  tenants  for  years ;   and  that  the 
greatest  part  of  the  said  land  doth  lie  in  the  county  of 
OR,  that  you  are  a  freeholder  and  sole  owner  of  twenty  five 
acres  of  land  with  a  house  and  plantation  upon  it,  lying  and 
being  in  the  county  of  in  your  sole  possession,  or  in 

the  possession  of  your  tenant  or  tenants  for  years ;  OR,  that 
you  are  a  freeholder  and  sole  owner  of  a  house  and  lot,  or  a 
house  and  part  of  a  lot,  in  your  possession,  or  in  the  posses- 
sion of  your  tenant  or  tenants  lying  and  being  in  the  city 
and  town  of  ,  and  that  such  freehold  estate  hath  not 

been   made  or  granted  to  you  fraudulently  on  purpose  to 

1  II  Will.  Ill,  chap.  2,  3  Hening  172. 

14  Anne,  chap.  2,  3  Hening  336. 

5  IO  Geo.  II,  chap.  2,  §  vii,  4  Hening  475. 


266  APPENDICES. 

qualify  you  to  give  your  vote ;  and  that  you  have  not  been 
polled  before  at  this  election.1 

NORTH    CAROLINA. 

Locke's  Constitution  required  all  persons  seventeen  years 
of  age  or  over  to  take  the  following  oath  before  they  could 
have  any  rights  in  the  province.  In  this  respect  it  falls  under 
the  head  of  a  voter's  oath,  though  of  course  the  elector  must 
be  a  freeman  of  the  proper  age.2 

I  A  B  do  promise  to  bear  faith  and  true  allegiance  to  our 
sovereign  Lord  King  Charles  the  Second,  his  heirs  and  suc- 
cessors, and  will  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  Palatine  and  Lords 
Proprietors  of  Carolina,  their  heirs  and  successors,  and  with 
my  utmost  power  will  defend  them  and  maintain  the  govern- 
ment,according  to  this  establishment  in  these  fundamental 
constitutions. 

Oath  to  be  taken  upon  challenge  by  any  person  present? 

You  shall  swear,  That  you  have  been  possessed  of  a 
Freehold,  of  Fifty  acres  of  Land  for  Three  Months  past  in 
your  own  Right,  in  the  County  of  and  have  been  Six 

Months  an  inhabitant  of  this  Province ;  and  that  you  have 
not  given  in  your  vote  before  in  this  Election.  So  HELP  YOU 
GOD. 

In  1 760  the  following  oath  was  substituted  for  the  above:4 

You  shall  swear  that  you  have  been  Six  Months  an  In- 
habitant of  this  Province,  and  that  you  have  been  possessed 
of  a  freehold  of  Fifty  acres  of  Land  for  three  months  past,  in 

JA  portion  of  this  oath  is  taken  from  the  English  statute  of  10  Anne,  chap.  23. 
For  additional  oaths  see  15  Geo.  II,  chap.  26,  §  iii,  5  Hening  204;  3  Geo.  Ill, 
chap.  I,  §  xiii,  7  Hening  519. 

2  Art.  117,  2  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  205. 

"17  Geo.  II.,  chap,  i,  Davis  ed.,  1752,  177. 

4  33  Geo.  II.,  chap,  i,  Davis  ed.,  1773,  247. 


APPENDICES. 


26; 


your  own  Right  in  the  County  of  ,  and  that  such  land 

hath  not  been  granted  you  fraudulently,  on  Purpose  to 
qualify  you  to  give  your  Vote;  and  that  the  place  of  your 
abode  is  in  the  County  of  and  that  you  have  not  voted 

in  this  election.     So  HELP  YOU  Goo.1 

In  Vestry  elections  the  following  oath  was  prescribed  \l 
You  shall  swear  (or  affirm)  that  you  are  in  actual  Posses- 
sion  of  a  Freehold  of    Fifty  Acres   of  Land   in  your  own 
Right  (or  the  Right  of  some  other  Person)  ;   or  a  Lot  in  the 
Town  of  saved  according  to  Law,   in  the  Parish  of 

and   that  you  have   not  given  your  Vote  before    in 
this  Election.     So  HELP  YOU  GOD. 

SOUTH    CAROLINA. 

Oaths   covering  the  qualifications   were   administered    to 
every  voter.3 

GEORGIA. 
Oath  to  be  administered  at  the  reqtiest  of  one  of  the  candidates 

or  of  any  two  persons  qualified  to  vote? 
I  AB,  do  swear  that  I   am  legally  possessed  in   my  own 
Right  of  a   freehold   Estate   of   fifty  acres   of  Land   in  the 
Township  or  District  of  and  that  such  Estate  is  legally 

or  bona  fide  in  my  own  right  and  not  made  over  or  granted 
to  me  purposely  or  fraudulently  to  intitle  me  to  vote  at  this 
Election. 

1  The  latter  part  of  this  oath  is  similar  to  that  prescribed  in  England  by  statute 
of  10  Anne,  chap.  23. 

2  5  Geo.  Ill,  chap.  2,  Davis,  ed.,  1773,  305. 

3  Act  1704,  no.  227,  2  Cooper,  249;  Act  1716,  no.  365,  2  Cooper,  683. 

4  Act  1761. 


268  APPENDICES. 

t 

§  2.     Election  Officers. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

"Oath  to  be  administered  to  those  that  sort  and  number  the 

votes  "^ 

Whereas  yow  ABC  are  appointed  and  betrusted  ffor  the 
opening  the  Proxies  sent  in  by  the  Freemen,  and  receiving 
sorting  and  numbering  the  Votes  for  the  choice  of  Gou'nor 
Deputy  Gou'nor  ,  Assistants  and  other  public  Officers  of  this 
Jurisdiction  to  be  Chosen  on  the  ellection  Day  yow  doe  now 
sweare  by  the  Name  of  Almighty  God  that  yow  will  deale 
truely  and  uprightly  therein  as  also  that  you  will  not  either 
directly  or  indirectly  discouer  either  persons  or  number  of 
Votes  until  the  Election  is  ended.  So  help  you  God. 

CONNECTICUT. 

At  the  election  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of 
Governor  Winthrop,  in  1707,  the  tellers  chosen  to  count  the 
votes  of  the  legislature  took  the  following  oath:2 

You,  AB,  CD  &c  being  appointed  to  sort  the  votes  now 
to  be  given  in  for  the  choice  of  a  Governour  doe  swear  that 
you  will  faithfully  do  the  same  and  declare  who  is  chosen  by 
the  major  part  of  this  assembly.  So  help  you  God. 

Orders  at  Court  of  Feb'y  4th,  1679-80;  5  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records,  262. 
2  5  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  38. 


APPENDIX  B. 

UNPUBLISHED  STATUTES  RELATING  TO  ELECTIONS. 
PENNSYLVANIA. 

LAWS  I/OO,  CHAPTER  28.' 

An  Act  to  Ascertain  the  Number  of  Members  of  Assembly 

And  to  Regulate  the  Elections. 

For  the  prevention  of  all  dispute  and  uncertainty  for  the 
future,  what  persons  shall  be  accounted  freemen  of  this 
Province  and  Territories  and  have  right  of  electing  or  being 
elected  members  of  Assembly.  Be  it  Enacted  by  the  Pro- 
prietary and  Governor  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  freemen  of  this  Province  and  Territories  in  Gen- 
eral Assembly  met  and  by  the  authority  of  the  same,  That 
there  shall  be  four  persons  elected  yearly  in  said  respective 
county  of  this  Province  and  Territories  to  serve  as  members 
of  Assembly.  And  that  no  inhabitant  of  this  Province  and 
Territories  shall  have  the  right  of  electing  or  being  elected 
as  aforesaid  unless  he  or  they  be  natural  or  native  born  sub- 
ject or  subjects  of  England  or  be  naturalized  in  England  or 
in  this  Province  and  Territories  and  unless  said  person  or 
persons  as  aforesaid  be  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  or 
upward  and  be  a  free-holder  or  free-holders  of  this  Province 

1  This  statute  was  incorporated  by  reference  in  Penn's  Charter  of  Privileges, 
and  confirmed  by  that  instrument  as  establishing  the  qualifications  of  electors. 
(See  I  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  444,  for  a  copy  of  the  charter.)  The 
present  act  is'referred  to  by  title  in  most  of  the  editions  of  the  Pennsylvania  co- 
lonial statutes.  The  copy  now  published  was  obtained  from  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  where  the  original  is  of  record. 


270 


APPENDICES. 


or  Territories  and  have  fifty  acres  of  land  or  more  well 
seated  and  twelve  acres  thereof  or  more  cleared  and  im- 
proved or  be  otherwise  worth  fifty  pounds  lawful  money  of 
this  Government,  clear  estate  and  have  been  resident  therein 
for  the  space  of  two  years  before  said  election.  And  to  the 
end  that  elections  on  which  the  good  of  the  Government  so 
much  depends  may  not  be  corruptly  managed  or  obtained. 
It  is  Enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that  all  elections 
of  the  said  Representatives  shall  be  free  and  voluntary  and 
that  the  elector  that  shall  receive  any  reward  or  gift  for  his 
vote  shall  forfeit  his  right  of  electing  for  that  year  and  be 
fined  in  the  sum  of  five  pounds  to  the  use  of  the  Proprietary 
and  Governor.  And  that  all  and  every  person  and  persons 
that  shall  give,  offer  or  promise  any  reward  to  be  elected  or 
that  shall  offer  to  serve  for  nothing  or  less  allowance  than 
the  law .  prescribes  shall  be  fined  in  the  like  sum  of  five 
pounds  for  the  use  aforesaid  and  be  incapable  of  serving  for 
that  year  and  the  Representatives  so  chosen  as  above 
directed  shall  yield  their  attendance  accordingly  and  being 
in  Assembly  shall  be  the  sole  judges  of  the  regularity  or 
irregularity  of  the  elections  of  the  respective  members 
according  to  this  Act.  And  if  any  person  or  persons  so 
chosen  to  serve  as  aforesaid  shall  be  wilfully  absent  from  the 
service  he  or  they  are  elected  unto,  every  such  person  or 
persons  shall  be  fined  in  the  sum  of  twenty  pounds  to  the 
use  aforesaid  unless  his  or  their  excuse  shall  be  allowed  by 
the  Assembly.  And  in  case  any  person  or  persons  so 
chosen  as  aforesaid  shall  die  in  the  meantime  or  be  rendered 
incapable,  then  and  in  such  cases  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
Proprietary  and  Governor  and  his  successors  and  his  or  their 
Lieutenant  and  Governor  for  the  time  being  after  knowledge 
thereof  to  issue  his  or  their  writ  or  writs  to  the  Sheriffs  of  the 
respective  counties  for  which  the  said  person  or  persons 
were  chosen  immediately  to  summon  the  freemen  of  the  same 


APPENDICES. 


271 


to  elect  another  member  or  members  in  the  room  and  stead 
of  such  absent  or  deceased  or  incapable  person  or  persons 
and  to  return  the  same  duly  executed.  And  for  the  preven- 
tion of  all  such  exceptions  or  complaints  for  want  of  due 
notice  of  elections,  Be  it  Enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid 
that  publication  of  all  and  every  writ  or  writs  for  elections  as 
aforesaid  shall  be  made  by  the  several  Sheriffs  ,of  this  Prov- 
ince and  Territories  in  their  respective  counties  or  by  some 
others  by  them  severally  appointed  to  read  the  same  in  the 
capital  town  or  most  public  place  within  their  respective 
Bailiwicks  between  the  hours  of  ten  in  the  morning  and  two 
in  the  afternoon  with  an  advertisement  posted  upon  some 
tree  or  house  in  the  way  of  leading  from  every  hundred  or 
precinct  to  the  said  capital  towns  or  places  respectively  and 
also  upon  the  Courthouses  and  public  fixed  meeting  houses 
for  Religious  worship  in  the  said  respective  counties  with  all 
convenient  speed  after  he  receives  the  writ  and  also  give 
notice  thereof  to  every  Constable  of  the  several  hundreds 
and  townships  which  Constables  are  required  to  promulgate 
the  same  under  penalty  of  five  pounds  each  for  each  offence. 
And  in  case  any  sheriff  shall  be  deficient  therein  he  shall  be 
fined  in  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds  for  each  offence  and  in  case 
any  Sheriff  shall  misbehave  himself  in  the  management  of  the 
aforesaid  elections  he  shall  be  punished  accordingly  at  the 
discretion  of  the  Governor  and  Council  for  the  time  being. 
And  be  it  further  Enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that 
every  member  chosen  or  to  be  chosen  by  the  freemen  as 
aforesaid  to  serve  in  the  Assembly  shall  be  allowed  the  sum 
of  six  shillings  by  the  day  and  the  Speaker  ten  shillings  per 
day  during  his  or  their  attendance  on  the  service  thereof 
and  that  every  member  of  Assembly  shall  be  allowed  toward 
his  travelling  charges  after  the  rate  of  three  pence  for  each 
mile  both  going  to  and  coming  from  the  place  where  the 
Assembly  is  or  shall  be  held.  And  be  it  further  Enacted  by 


2/2 


APPENDICES. 


the  authority  aforesaid  that  all  Laws  hereafter  to  be  made  in 
this  Province  and  Territories  shall  be  fairly  engrossed  in  rolls 
of  paper  or  parchment  before  the  final  passing  thereof. 

#  #  #  #  *  *  * 

Passed  November  27,  1700. 

Recorded  A.  Vol.  I.  page  15. 
Repealed  by  the  Queen  in  Counsel,  February  7,  1705. 


MARYLAND. 

4  ANNE,  CHAPTER  3.5  .J 

An  Act  directing  the  Manner  of  Electing  and  summoning 
Delegates  and  Representatives  to  serve  in  succeeding  As- 
semblys. 

FORASMUCH  as  the  chiefest  and  only  foundation  and  sup- 
port of  any  Kingdom  State  or  Commonwealth  is  the  pro- 
viding establishing  and  enacting  good  and  wholesome  laws 
for  the  good  rule  and  government  thereof  and  also  upon  any 
necessary  and  emergent  occasion  to  raise  and  levy  money 
for  the  defraying  the  charges  of  the  said  Government  and 
defence  thereof  neither  of  which  according  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  this  province  can  be  made  ordained  established  or 
raised  but  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  freemen  of  this 
province  by  their  severall  delegates  and  representatives  by 
them  freely  nominated  chosen  and  elected  to  serve  for  their 
severall  citys  and  countys  in  a  Generall  Assembly.  And 
forasmuch  as  the  safest  and  best  rule  for  this  province  to 

1  Bacon  refers  to  this  act  by  title  and  declares  it  to  be  obsolete.  We  have 
thought  it  unnecessary  to  publish  the  act  of  4  Will,  and  Mary,  chap.  76,  be- 
cause on  comparison  we  find  that  it  is  similar  to  the  law  passed  in  the  third  year 
of  Charles  Lord  Baltimore  (1678),  mutatis  mutandis.  The  latter  statute  was 
reprinted  a  few  years  ago  in  the  Maryland  State  Archives  (3  Proceedings  and 
Acts  of  Assembly,  60-63),  and  is  therefore  easy  of  access. 


APPENDICES,  273 

follow  in  electing  such  Delegates  and  Representatives  is  the 
presidents  of  the  proceeding  in  parliament  in  England  as 
near  as  the  Constitution  of  this  province  will  admit.  The 
Governour  Councill  and  Delegates  of  this  present  Generall 
Assembly  do  humbly  pray  that  it  may  be  enacted  and  BE 
IT  ENACTED  by  the  Queens  most  excellent  Majesty  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  her  Majestys  Governour 
councill  and  Assembly  of  this  province  and  the  authority  of 
the  same  that  for  the  future  when  and  as  often  as  his  excel- 
lency the  Governour  of  this  province  for  the  time  being 
shall  be  upon  any  accident  and  urgent  affair  of  this  province 
think  fitt  to  call  and  convene  an  Assembly  and  to  send  writts 
for  election  of  Burgesses  and  Delegates  to  serve  in  such 
Assembly  the  form  of  the  said  writt  shall  be  as  followeth. 

(Here  follows  the  form  of  writ  as  given  in  Appendix  A 
of  the  present  work.) 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  that 
two  citizens  to  serve  in  the  said  Assembly  for  the  city  of 
St.  Marys  shall  be  nominated  elected  chosen  and  appointed 
by  the  major  Recorder  Aldemen  and  comon  councill  as 
heretofore  hath  been  usual. 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that 
the  aforesaid  four  Delegates  to  be  elected  in  the  respective 
countys  within  this  province  and  the  two  citizens  of  the  city 
of  St.  Marys  be  and  are  hereby  bound  and  obliged  to  attend 
the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting  of  such  Assembly  without 
any  further  writt  or  sumons  to  bee  to  them  sent  under  the 
penalty  of  such  fines  as  shall  be  by  the  house  of  Assembly 
imposed  upon  them  unless  upon  sufficient  excuse  to  be 
admitted  by  the  said  house  of  Assembly  their  absence  be 
excused  withall  any  law  statute  usage  or  custom  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

And  be  it  also  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid 
that  any  sheriff  that  shall  refuse  and  neglect  to  make  return 


274 


APPENDICES. 


of  the  Delegates  so  elected  by  Indenture  as  aforesaid  before 
the  day  of  sitting  of  such  Assembly  or  that  shall  make  any 
undue  or  illegall  returns  of  such  elections  shall  for  every 
fault  be  fined  two  hundred  pounds  ster'l  the  one  half  to 
her  Majesty  her  heirs  and  successors  for  the  support  of 
Government  and  the  other  half  to  the  Informer  or  him  or 
them  that  shall  sue  for  the  same  to  be  recovered  in  any 
Court  of  record  in  this  province  wherein  no  essoyn  protec- 
tion or  wager  of  Law  to  bee  allowed. 

PROVIDED  nevertheless  that  this  act  or  anything  herein 
contained  shall  not  extend  to  be  construed  to  exclude  any 
County  or  Countys  city  or  citys  Burrough  or  Burroughs 
hereafter  by  her  Majesty  her  heirs  or  successors  to  be 
erected  and  made  within  this  province  from  the  liberty  of 
such  elections  of  Delegates  and  Representatives  as  is  before 
expressed  But  that  such  writt  as  aforesaid  shall  upon  calling 
every  Generall  Assembly  for  this  province  for  the  future 
issue  to  the  sheriff  of  every  such  county  when  the  same  shall 
be  erected  and  made  into  a  county  as  aforesaid  and  to  the 
major  Recorder  and  Aldermen  of  every  such  city  or  Bur- 
rough  comanding  such  sheriff  or  major  recorder  and  alder- 
men to  cause  four  freemen  of  the  said  County  and  two  free- 
men of  the  said  city  or  Burrough  qualifyed  as  in  the  said 
writt  is  expressed  to  serve  as  Delegates  and  Representatives 
of  the  said  county  city  or  Burrough  in  the  Generall  Assem- 
bly then  next  ensuing  which  said  four  Delegates  for  every 
such  county  and  two  for  the  city  and  Burrough  shall  from 
henceforth  be  reputed  and  esteemed  to  be  members  of  the 
house  of  the  Generall  Assembly  of  this  province  anything  in 
this  Act  to  the  contrary  in  anywise  notwithstanding. 

Provided  also  that  no  ordinary  Keeper  within  this  prov- 
ince during  the  time  of  his  keeping  ordinary  shall  be  elected 
chosen  or  serve  as  a  Deputy  or  Representative  in  the  said 


APPENDICES. 


275 


Generall  Assembly  so  to  be  hereafter  called  convened  and 
appointed  as  aforesaid. 

Sept.  23rd,  1704  Sept.  26th  1704 

Read  and  assented  to  by  Read  and  assented  to  by 

the  house  of  Delegates  her  Majestys  Honble  Councill 

W  SAYLARD  Clk  H.  D.          W  BLADEN  Clk  Councill 

Maryland  October  3d  1704 
On  the  behalf  of  her  Maty  I  wjH  this  be  a  Law 

Jo:  SEYMOUR. 

f      Seal      1 

\        of 

(  Maryland  J 

I,  J  Frank  Ford,  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Mary- 
land do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full  and  true 
Copy  of  an  Act  of  the  Provinciall  Assembly  of  Maryland  as 
taken  from  Liber  L.  L.  No  3  Folios  90  &c.  one  of  the  Record 
Books  of  this  Office. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my 
hand  as  Clerk  and  affixed  the  seal  of  the 

f       Seal  of  the      ") 

4  Court  of  Appeals  j-      said   Court  of  Appeals   this    loth  day  of 
June  1892. 

[Signed]  J.  FRANK  FORD 

Clerk  Court  of  Appeals  of  Maryland. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

10    GEORGE   I,   CHAPTER   2.1 

An  Act  intituled  an  additional  Act  relating  to  biennial  and 
other  Assemblies  and  regulating  Elections  and  divers  other 
things  relating  to  Towns. 
Whereas  by  the  Act  intituled  an  Act  relating  to  Biennial 

1  The  act  of  1 723  is  referred  to  by  title  in  the  several  editions  of  the  North 
Carolina  laws  as  chapter  2  of  the  statutes  passed  in  that  year.  Davis  and  Swann 
(ed.  1752,  67;  ed.  1773,  37,)  give  the  title  of  another  law,  "an  act  for  Regulating 
towns  and  Elections  of  Burgesses,"  passed  Nov.  6th,  1 727.  On  account  of  the  sup- 


2/6 


APPENDICES. 


and  other  Assemblies  and  regulating  Elections  and  Mem- 
bers. And  by  a  late  Act  intituled  an  Act  for  enlarging  and 
Encouragement  of  the  town  called  Edenton  in  Chowan  pre- 
cincts the  inhabitants  of  Several  Towns  in  this  Government 
have  Liberty  to  elect  a  Representative  to  Sit  in  all  succeed- 
ing Assemblies  but  there  being  no  particular  directions  how 
such  Representative  or  the  votes  shall  be  qualified  for  the 
better  regulating  thereof. 

Be  it  Enacted  by  his  Excellency  the  Palatin,  Sac. 

And  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  the  authority  of  the  same 
that'  no  person  or  persons  shall  be  admitted  Representative 
or  Burgess  for  any  town  in  this  government  unless  he  be  a 
Freeholder' or  owner  of  a  saved  lott  in  the  said  town  and 
hath  been  so  for  eighteen  months  preceeding.the  said  elec- 
tion and  doth  constantly  maintain  and  keep  an  habitable 
house  thereon. 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that 
no  person  or  persons  whatsoever  shall  be  admitted  to  elect 
or  vote  for  a  representative  or  burgess  for  any  town  in  this 
Government,  unless  he  be  an  owner  of  a  saved  lott  in  the 
said  town  and  doth  constantly  keep  an  house  or  houses  in 
repair  thereon  not  lett  or  tenanted  to  and  by  a  person 
capable  of  voting  in  the  said  town,  though  not  residing 
therein.  Provided  nevertheless  that  where  any  person  who 
hath  paid  the  preceeding  years  levy  or  pole  tax  doth  rent 
and  live  in  and  on  any  such  house  or  lott  in  the  said  town 
not  tenanted  shall  have  a  right  of  voting  for  a  Representa- 
tive or  Burgess,  but  if  the  tenant  by  law  have  not  a  right  to 

posed  destruction  of  the  original  manuscript  laws  passed  between  the  years  1723 
and  1743  (see  footnote  p.  89,  ante),  it  has  not  been  possible  to  procure  a  copy 
of  this  statute.  A  search  among  the  papers  of  the  Public  Record  Office  in 
London  has  failed  to  bring  to  light  a  copy  of  the  act  of  1727,  or  of  either  of  the 
South  Carolina  election  laws  of  October  I5th,  1692  (No.  78,  2  Cooper)  or  of 
March  loth,  1696-7  (No.  152,  2  Cooper,  130)  respectively,  to  which  reference  has 
several  times  been  made  in  this  work. 


APPENDICES. 


277 


vote,  then  the  owner  thereof  and  not  the  tenant  shall  have 
the  vote  and  no  other  person  or  persons  than  what  are 
above  expressed,  shall  have  any  vote  for  any  member  or 
representative  in  such  towns,  any  Law  Usage  or  Custom  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that 
no  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  not  having  resided  within 
this  Government  eighteen  months  next  preceeding  any  sue-- 
ceeding  elections  shall  be  capable  of  being  elected  or  chosen 
as  a  representative  or  member  of  assembly  for  any  town  or 
precinct  within  the  Government. 

(The  remainder  of  this  statute  relates  to  subjects  wholly 
foreign  to  the  topic  treated  in  the  present  work.  It  is  therefore 
omitted.) 

I,  J.  C.  Birdsong,  State  Librarian,  do  hereby  certify  that 
the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  "An  Act  intituled  an  addi- 
tional Act  relating  to  biennial  and  other  Assemblies  and 
regulating  ejections  and  divers  other  things  relating  to  towns," 
passed  "At  a  General  Biennial  Assembly  begun  and  held  at 
Edenton,  the  4th  day  of  November,  1723,  and  continued  by 
several  adjournments  to  the  23rd  day  of  the  same,"  the  same 
being  now  on  file  in  the  State  Library  of  this  State.1 

[Signed]  J.  C.  BIRDSONG, 

State  Librarian. 

December  23rd,  1892. 

8  GEORGE  II,  CHAPTER  2? 

An  Act  for  repealing  a  Clause  in  an  Act  Intituled  an  Act  re- 
lating to  Bienial  and  other  Assemblies,  which  empowers 
Freemen  of  the  several .  precincts  to  vote  for  Members  of 
Assembly  ;  And  declaring  what  persons  shall  be  qualified  to 

1  There  is  also  a  copy  of  this  act  in  the  Public  Record  Office  in  London. 

-  This  act  is  quoted  by  title  in  Davis  and  Swann  (ed.  1752,  79;  ed.  1773,  45). 
The  copy  now  published  was  found  in  the  British  Public  Record  Office  in  Lon- 
don. 


278 


APPENDICES. 


vote  for  members  to  sit  in  General  Assembly;  And  also  qual- 
ification of  Members  for  the  future, 

Whereas  it  hath  been  found  inconvenient  for  the  Freemen 
of  each  precinct  to  vote  for  members  of  Assembly;  And  His 
Majesty  by  his  Royal  Instruction  having  been  pleased  to  di- 
rect that  only  only  the  Freeholders  of  this  Province  should 
be  Intituled  to  vote  for  Members  of  Assembly.  Therefore 
be  it  Enacted  by  His  Excellency  Gabriel  Johnston  Esqr  Gov- 
ernour,  the  Council  and  General  Assembly,  That  no  person 
hereafter  shall  be  admitted  to  give  his  vote  in  any  Election 
for  members  of  Assembly  for  the  precincts  in  this  Province, 
unless  such  person  has  been  an  Inhabitant  in  the  precinct 
where*  he  votes  at  least  six  months,  and  has  bona  fide  a  Free- 
hold in  his  own  Right  of  at  least  fifty  Acres  of  Land  in  the 
said  precinct,  which  he  shall  have  been  possest  of  Three 
Months  before  he  offers  to  give  his  vote. 

And  be  it  Enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  That  here- 
after no  person  shall  be  deemed  qualified  or  admitted  to  sit 
in  the  Assembly,  unless  he  has  been  one  full  year  an  Inhab- 
itant of  this  Province,  and  is  possessed  in  his  own  Right  of 
at  least  one  hundred  acres  of  Freehold  Land  in  the  precinct 
where  he  is  Elected  or  Chosen. 

And  it  is  hereby  Enacted  that  those  parts  of  the  two 
clauses  in  an  Act  Intituled  "  an  Act  relating  to  the  Biennial 
and  other  Assemblys ;  wherein  the  Freemen  of  the  respect- 
ive precincts  of  the  County  of  Albemarle,  and  the  Freemen 
in  each  precinct,  in  Every  other  County,  are  Impowered  to 
vote  for  Members  to  Sit  in  the  General  Assembly ;  as  also 
that  part  of  the  clause  in  an  Act  Intituled  "an  Act  for  regu- 
lating Towns  and  Elections  of  Burgesses;"  that  permit  per- 
sons to  vote  who  have  been  resident  six  Months  in  the  pre- 
cinct where  they  vote,  are  hereby  declared  repealed.  And 
be  it  further  Enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  that  if  any 
dispute  or  Challange  shall  arise  touching  the  qualification  of 


APPENDICES. 


279 


any  person  or  persons  offering  his  or  their  vote  according  to 
the  true  Intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act,  that  then  and  in 
such  Case,  it  shall  and  may  be  Lawful  for  the  person  who  is 
authorized  to  take  the  Poll,  to  administer  an  Oath  to  such 
person  or  persons  so  off'ring  his  or  their  vote,  that  he  or 
they  are  quallified  pursuant  to  this  Act ;  and  that  the  same 
Oath  be  administred  to  every  candidate  upon  any  Chal- 
lenge made  of  his  being  quallified,  as  is  in  this  Act  Provided, 
any  Law  heretofore  made  to  the  Contrary  in  any  wise  not- 
withstanding. And  be  it  further  Enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid,  that  from  and  after  the  ratification  of  this  Act, 
That  all  Elections  of  Members  to-  sit  in  General  Assembly, 
shall  be  held  and  taken  at  the  Court  House  in  Every  pre- 
cinct &  in  Case  there  should  be  no  Court  house  in  any  of  the 
said  precincts,  that  then  and  in  such  case,  it  shall  and  may 
be  lawful  for  the  Inhabitants  of  such  precinct,  to  meet  and 
Convene  at  the  place  appointed  for  such  Court  house  to  be 
built ;  and  if  no  place  for  that  purpose  appointed,  then  at 
the  usual  place  in  the  said  precinct  to  Elect  as  aforesaid ; 
any  Law  Custom  or  Usage  to  the  Contrary,  in  any  wise  not- 
withstanding. 

GEORGIA. 
ACT  OF  JUNE  9, 1761.' 

AN  ACT 
To  assertain  the  manner  and  form  of  Electing  Members  to 

represent  the  Inhabitants  t>f  this  Province  in  the  Commons 

House  of  Assembly — 

JThis  statute  is  quoted  by  title  in  Watkins,  Digest  of  the  Laws  of  Georgia,  as  act 
number  73.  It  is  said  that  the  session  laws  passed  under  the  provincial  govern- 
ment were  printed  annually  at  Charleston  and  Savannah,  commencing  in  1756. 
Copies  of  these  are  extremely  rare,  and  we  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  trace  of 
one.  The  celebrated  Charlemagne  Tower  collection  is  wanting  in  this  particular, 
and  as  a  reprint  of  some  of  the  Georgia  colonial  statutes  made  in  1881  does  not 
contain  the  election  law  of  1761,  it  has  been  thought  advisable  to  insert  it  in  this 
connection. 


2  8  O  APPENDICES. 

Preamble  to—  Whereas  the  manner  and  form  of  chusing 
Members  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly 
to  represent  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Province 
and  the  Qualification  of  the  Electors  and  those 
elected  Members  of  the  Commons  House  of 
Assembly  has  never  yet  been  appointed,  fixed 
and  determined  by  any  Laws  of  this  Province, 
We  therefore  pray  your  most  Sacred  Majesty 
that  it  may  be  Enacted — 

Enacted.  AND  BE  IT  ENACTED  by  hjs  Honor  James 

Wright  Esquire  Lieutenant  Governor  and  Com- 
mander in-Chief  of  this  his  Majesty's  Province 
of  Georgia  by  and  with  the  advice  and  Consent 
of  the  Honerable  Council  and  the  Commons 
House  of  Assembly  of  the  said  Province  in 
General  Assembly  met  and  by  the  authority  of 

Writs  for  electing  J 

Members   ot   AS-   the  Same  That  from  and  after  the  passing  of 

sembly  to  be  issued 

wkconsen7ofr"he  this  Act  a11  Writs  for  the  Election  of  Members. 

Ste2day°s before'  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly  shall  be 

for^tingfand'to  issued  out  by  the  Governor  or  Commander  in 

Provo7tc  Marshall  Chief  for  the  time  being  with  the  Consent  of 

who    is     to    cause       ,.-.  . ,  11111'  1  i 

such  Election  to  be   the  Council  and  shall  bear  teste  forty  day's  be- 

made    and     return 

the  names  of  the   fore  the  day  appointed  for  the  Meeting  of  the 

Persons  elected.  J       r  r 

said  Members  and  shall  be  directed  by  the  Pro- 
vost Marshal  in  the  said  Writs  to  Cause  such 
Elections  to  be  made  and  to  return  the  Names 
of  the  Persons  eleclected  to  be  Members  of  the 
Commons  House  of  Assembly  and  the  Provost 
Marshal  is  hereby  empowered  and  required  to 
execute  such  Writ  to  him  directed  and  for  the 

Provost  Marshall  faithful  and  due  performance  of  which  accord- 
to    cause    publick 

Notice  to  be  made   mg  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act 

m    writing  of   the          *> 

Ei^tio^aHeasfm  the  Provost  Marshal  shall  cause  publick  Notice 
ofayEiecettne.theday  in  writing  to  be  affixed  at  one  or  more  noted 


APPENDICES.  28l 

place  or  places  in  such  Parish,  District  or 
Town  or  Village  for  which  the  election  of  a 
Member  or  Members  by  him  is  to  be  taken  at 
least  ten  days  before  the  day  of  Election  of  the 
time  and  place  where  such  election  is  by  him 
to  be  taken.  AND  BE  IT  FURTHER  ENACTED 

livery  free  white 

by  the  authority  aforesaid  that  every  free  white  man  Ol  the  *&  °f 

J  J  J  21     ears  and  natn 


man  and  no  other  who  has  attained  to  the  age      en 


2i  years  and  hath 
been    Resident    in 

of  Twenty  One  years  and  hath  been  Resident  sessedsinahts  own 
in    the    Province    Six    Months    and    is    legally  0f1§Land 5°in  "hi 

.   .  .  _  .  Parish  &c  where  a 

possessed  in   his  own  Right  of  fifty  Acres  of  Member  is  to  be 

'  Elected,       deemed 

Land  in  the  said  Parish  District  or  village  for  qualified  to  vote  for 

such      representa- 

which  the  Member  or  Members  is  or  are  to  be  tive- 
elected  to  represent  in  the  General  Assembly 
shall  be  deemed  a  person  qualified  for  Electing 
a  Representative  or  Representatives  to  serve  as 
Member  or  Members  of  the  Commons  House 
of  Assembly  for  the  Parish  District  Town  or 
village  wherein   he   is   possessed   of  the  above 
Qualification.     And    for    preventing   frauds  as  to^ter^ne^mes 
much  as  may  be  in  all  Elections,  It  is  hereby  can^tes^kT °l 
Enacted   by  the   Authority  aforesaid   that  the  ^e°kN^ne°of  ahe 
Returning  Officer  shall  come  to  the  place  at  the  Name  of^h"  Per^ 

,  ,  ift  •  •  i     son  voted  for,  and 

time  appointed  by  the  pubhck  notice  given  and  no  Voter  to  alter 

his   vote   after  en- 

shall  enter  the  Names  of  every  person  presented  tered,  or  vote  twice 

at  the  same  Elec- 

or  presenting  himself  as  a  Candidate  in  a  Book  don- 
or  Roll  leaving  a  fair  Column  under  each  Can- 
didates Name  for  the  names  of  the  Voters  and 
when  a  Voter  comes  and  Votes  the  Returning 
Officer  shall  repeat  distinctly  the  person  or  per- 
sons Names  for  whom  the  vote  is  given  before 
he  writes  the  Voters  Name  in  the  fair  Column 
under  the  name  of  such  Candidate  or  Candi- 
dates as  shall  be  voted  for  by  that  person  and 


->o,->  APPENDICES. 


that  no  Voter  shall  alter  his  vote  after  it  be 
entered  or  vote  twice  at  one  and  the  same  Elec- 
tion and  that  the  Candidate  or  Candidates  who 


The  Candidate  or     after    tjle   pQU    jg  closecj    and    the  VOtCS    Summed 
Candidates  having 

vhcetesR(uaStyscr^  up  shall  be  found  (upon  Scrutiny  made  if  de- 

mandeTdeciarecu  nianded)  to  have  the  Majority  of  votes  shall  be 

berT  of  °he  AS-  deemed  and  declared  to  be  a  Member  or  Mem- 

bers  of   the    succeeding    Commons    House    of 

Assembly.     AND  BE  IT  ENACTED  by  the  Au- 

vote  to  be  taken  thority  aforesaid  that  the  time  for  taking  votes  at 

between  the  hours  J 

and  I6o[  thferciock  an7  election  shall  be  between  the  hours  of  Nine 
and1™  elect™™  of  the  Clock  in  the  forenoon  and  Six  in  the  after- 
trTan1  "days,  tmilss  noon  and  that  at  adjourning  the  Poll  at  Con- 

a    Scrutiny   is  de-  •  •     i  i  j        •          ^.i        j_-  t  T^I       L-          L\ 

manded.  vcnient  hours  during  the  time  of  an  Election  the 

Returning  Officer  shall  first  sum  up  the  votes 
given  for  each  Candidate  and  declare  the  same 
to  the  Candidates  present  and  also  declare  the 
same  when  he  has  opened  the  Poll  at  the  ensu- 
ing Meeting  and  that  the  said  Election  shall  not 
continue  longer  than  two  days  unless  Scrutiny 
is  demanded.  PROVIDED  NEVERTHELESS  that 
Proviso  the  Returning  Officer  is  hereby  empowered  and 

Returning    Officer  J 

to  close  the  Poll  two   required    to   close   the    Poll   when   he   or  they 

hours  after  the  last 

vote  given  or  at  any  have  waited  two  hours  after  the  last  vote  has 

time    with  Consent 

present  Candldates   been  given  or  at  any  time  by  and  with  the  con- 

sent   and    desire    of    all    the    Candidates    then 

present.     AND    BE   IT    ENACTED    by  the  Au- 

turEneedrytors°berea  thority  aforesaid  that  every  person  who  shall 

sem'biy  t°be  a  free   be   elected  and  returned  as  is  before  directed 

born   subject   or   a     ...        A  ,  ,,          ,  .         ,         ,-, 

foreign  person  nat-  by  this  Act  to  serve  as  a  Member  in  the  Com- 

uralized  professing  .  it-         i   •      T»  •  111 

the  Christian  Re-  mons  House  of  Assembly  in  this  Province  shall 

ligeon  of  the  age  of 

twenty-one    years   be  qualified  in  the  following  manner  (viz)  That 

and  a  Resident  of 


this  Province  for  a     ^g    sha}l    ^C   a   fl'Ce   bOHl     Subject    Of    Great    Brit- 

year,  and  possessed  J 

°and°thereines  °f  am  ol"  °^  ^ne  dominions  thereunto  belonging  or 


APPENDICES.      .  283 

a  foreign  person  naturalized  possessing  the 
Christian  Religeon  and  no  other  and  that  hath 
arrived  at  the  age  of  Twenty  One  years  and 
hath  been  a  Resident  in  this  Province  for 
twelve  months  before  the  date  of  the  said  Writ 
and  being  legally  possessed  in  his  own  Right 
in  this  Province  of  a  Tract  of  Land  Containing 
at  least  five  hundred  Acres.  AND  BE  IT  EN- 
ACTED by  the  Authority  aforesaid  that  if  any 
Member  or  Members  chosen  or  hereafter  to  be 
chosen  to  serve  in  this  or  any  other  Commons 
House  of  Assembly  shall  refuse  to  serve  or 
any  Member  or  Members  should  die  or  depart  uiSJJSJJSLto 
this  Province  or  shall  be  expelled  the  House  ^H^slon^ 
so  that  his  or  their  Seat  or  Seats  become  serveorstaiTdfeor 

,,  i     •  1  .1         TT  i      11     depart  the  Province 

vacant  then  and  in  such  case  the  House  shall  or  be  expelled  the 

,  „  _.  ,  House.  The  House 

by  address  to  the  Governor  or  Commander  in  to  address  the  GOV- 

ernor  to  issue  new 

Chief  for  the  time  being  Signify  the  Same  and   writ  or  writs  to 

elect  a  Member  or 

desire  that  a  new  Writ  or  Writs  may  issue  to   Members  to  nil  up 

such  vacancy. 

elect  a  Member  or  Members  to  fill  up  the 
vacancy  or  vacancies  in  the  House  and  in  Con- 
sequence of  such  Address  a  new  Writ  or  Writs 
shall  be  issued  to  chuse  in  that  Parish  District 
Town  or  Village  such  other  Member  or  Mem- 
bers to  serve  in  the  place  or  places  of  such 
Member  or  Members  whose  seat  or  seats  are 
become  vacant  and  every  person  so  chosen 
and  returned  as  aforesaid  shall  attend  the  Com- 
mons House  of  Assembly  and  shall  be  reputed, 
deemed  and  judged  a  Member  thereof.  AND 
BE  IT  ENACTED  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  that 
if  any  returning  officer  as  aforesaid  shall  admit  cefn^^toke^he 
of  or  take  the  vote  of  any  person  refusing  at  X^gTo^eTh" 
the  request  of  one  of  the  Candidates  or  any  two  Bribed!""*1  pre" 


284  APPENDICES. 

persons  qualified  to  vote  to  take  the  following 

oath :    "  I,  A  B  do   swear    that  I    am  legally 

minkteredAenre-   "  possessed  in  my  own  Right  of  a  freehold  Es- 

voters?d  to  the  "tate  of  fifty  acres  of  Land  in  the  Township 

"  or  District  of  and  that  such  Estate 

"  is  legally  or  bona  fide  in  my  own  right  and 
"  not  made  over  or  Granted  to  me  purposely  or 
"  fraudulently  to  intitle  me  to  vote  at  this 
"Election" — or  at  the  request  of  any  Candi- 
date or  any  two  freeholders  shall  refuse  to 
administer  the  following  oath  to  any  Candi- 
date who  is  hereby  obliged  to  take  this  Oath 
if  so  required:  "I,  A  B  do  swear  that  I  am 
mkktered  to*  aliy  "  in  my  own  Right  truly  and  legally — possessed 
quited.  "  "  of  five  hundred  Acres  of  Land  within  this 

"  Province  and  that  the  said  Right  is  truly  and 
"  Bona  fide  within  myself  and  not  fraudulently 
"  made  over  or  granted   to  me  for  the  purpose 
"  of  qualifying   me  to  be  a  Representative  in 
"  General  Assembly"  or  if  the  Provost  Marshal 
•HUvHvfrad!  sha11  make  an7  fraudulent  return  or  shall  in- 
fllS5S"or°rpS   fluence   or  endeavor  to   influence  or  persuade 
nofio^ar'hl  any  Voter    not    to  vote   as    he   first   designed 

first     designed     to        .........  .  ,  10- 

forfeit^ 50  sterling  shall  forfeit  for  each   and  every  such   onence 

to  be  to  his  Majesty                                                                                         _  . 
for  defraying     the  the     SUIT!     of     fifty     pounds      bterlmg      to  DC     to 
expence  of  the  sit- 
ting of  the  General  his    Majesty  for   defraying   the    expence  of   the 

Assembly. 

sitting    of   the    General    Assembly  and    to    be 

sued  for   and   recovered  in  the  General  Court 

of  this   Province   by    Bill    Plaint  or    Informa- 

MShliPOTVany  tiofl.     AND  BE  IT  ENACTED  by  the  Authority 

byTim  t^'manage  aforesaid  that  the  Provost  Marshal  or  any  per- 

an  Election  not  to  ,  ,          .         ,     ,         ,    .  \ 

return  himself  as  a   son  properly  authorized  by  him  to  manage  an 

Member  to  same  in  -in  1-1 

General  Assembly,  Election  as  aforesaid  shall   not  return  himself 

and  refusing  to  at- 
tend and  inform  the   as  a  Member  to  serve  in  General  Assembly  and 

House  of  any  Mat- 


APPENDICES. 


285 


if  the  Provost  Marshal  refuses  or  neglects  on  a  ^SS^SSSnt- 

Summons   from    the   Commons  House  of   As-  SL^hi™C 

sembly  to  attend  that  House  to  inform  them  to  forfeit  /so  to"  be" 

the  best  of  his  knowledge  of  any  matter  or  dis-  afreaed.  as 

pute  that  did   arise  or  may  have  arisen  about 

the  election  of  the  Member  or  Members  by  him 

returned   to   serve  in  Assembly  or  refusing  to 

shew  the  Poll  taken  shall  forfeit  for  every  such 

offence  fifty  Pounds  Sterling  to  be  applied  and 

recovered  as  herein  before  directed.     AND  BE 

IT  FURTHER  ENACTED  by  the  Authority  afore- 

said that  if  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever  Any  Person  on 

the  day  of  Election 

shall  on  the  day  appointed   for  the  Election  of  attempting  by  any 

J        rr  arrest  or  threat  to 

'a  Member   or   Members  to  serve  in  the  Com-  0s^^otTIg^nll 

mons  House  of  Assembly  as  aforesaid  presume  j£s  S^"^ 

to  violate  the  freedom  of  the  said  Election  by  ^  Eiectbn  men- 

A                   -,  ,,                               ,-T^,  ace  or  abuse   any 

any  Arrest  Menaces  or  Threats  or  attempt  to  person  for  not  vot- 

.              ,                                                                           ..  r  ing    as    he    would 

over  awe  Affright  or  force  any  person  qualmed  have  had  him,  on 

'        .  sufficient  proof  be- 

to  vote  against  his  Inclination  or  Conscience  fore  two  justices  to 

be   bound   over   to 

or  otherwise  by  Bribery  obtain  any  vote  or  who  ^he  next  General 

»                  •                          '  Session  of  tat 

shall   after  the  said  Election  is  over  menance  vktedd\onforfeit°na 


«•«<* 


despightfully  use  or  abuse  any  person  be-  «•£ 
cause  he  has  not  voted  as  he  or  they  would 
have  had  him  every  such  person  ao  offending 
upon  due  and  sufficient  proof  made  of  such 
his  violence  or  abuse  menacing  or  threating 
before  any  two  Justices  of  the  Peace  shall 
be  bound  over  to  the  next  General  Sessions 
of  the'  Peace  himself  in  Twenty  .Pounds 
Sterling  money  and  two  Sureties  each  in 
Ten  Pounds  like  money  and  to  be  of  good 
behavior  and  abide  the  Sentence  of  the  Said 
Court  where  if  the  offender  or  offenders  are 
Convicted  and  found  Guilty  of  such  offence 


286    '  APPENDICES. 

or  offences  as  aforesaid  then  he  or  they  shall 
each  of  them  forfeit  a  sum  not  exceeding 
Twenty  Pounds  Sterling  money  and  be  Com- 
mitted to  Goal  without  bail  or  Mainprize 
till  the  same  be  paid  which  fine  so  imposed 
shall  be  paid  as  before  directed.  AND  BE  IT 
FURTHER  ENACTED  by  the  Authority  aforesaid 

No  Civil  Officer  * 

to  execute  any  writ  that   no    Civil    Officer   whatsoever   shall    exe- 

on  the  cody  oi  any 

votebhrjlfufne'y  cute  anY  Writ  or  other  Civil  Process  whatso- 
from0thehpiaceuronf  ever  upon  the  Body  of  any  person  qualified  to 
heecbe0nnoptrovmd0re  vote  for  Members  of  the  Commons  House  of 

than  48  hours  in  his      A  i   i  i       r  •       ,  i.  -A  j  •  i        • ,  1 

journey  to,  return-  Assembly  as  before  in  this  Act  directed  either 

ing  from  or  during     .         «  .         T  ... 

his  stay  there  on  in   his   Journey  to  or  m   his   return   from  the 

that     account,     or  .... 

within    48  hours  place  of  such  election  providing  he  shall  not 

after  the   Scrutiny    * 

for  such  Election  is  be  mere  than  forty  eight  hours  upon  his  Jour- 

fimshed  under  the  * 

notaexycee°ding  *£%  ney  either  going  to,  returning  from  or  during 
onSodySch  his  Sta7  there  upon  that  account  or  within 
.dme0niimitein  dl  forty  eight  hours  after  the  Scrutiny  for  such 
election  is  finished  under  the  Penalty  of  a  sum 
not  exceeding  Twenty  Pounds  Sterling  Money 
to  be  recovered  of  and  from  the  Officer  that 
shall  arrest  or  serve  any  Process  as  aforesaid 
after  such  manner  and  form  and  to  be  disposed 
of  as  herein  before  is  directed  and  all  such 
Writs  or  Warrants  executed  on  the  Body  of 
any  person  either  going  to  or  being  at  within 
the  time  limited  by  this  Clause  or  returning 
from  the  place  where  such  election  is  appointed 
to  be  managed  he  being  qualified  to  give  in  his 
vote  thereat  are  hereby  declared  void  and  null. 
This  Act  not  to  AND  BE  IT  ENACTED  by  the  Authority  afore- 

extend  to  debar  the  J  * 

ofratTenSright°UtSo  said  that  this  Act  or  any  part  thereof  shall  not 
theddtrefrionaofethi;s  extend  to  debar  the  Commons  House  of  As- 

Act  the  Qualifica-  ,,  .      ,         -n-i^  TI  11, 

tion  of  their  Mem-  sembly  of  the  Right  to  Judge  and   determine 


APPENDICES.  287 

agreeable  to  the  direction  of  this  Act  the  Qual-   a"a'y  °Lyto  Privf- 
ification   of  any  Member  or  Members   of  that  A^emWy  Ghe"r"o- 
House  or  to   take  away  from  the  General  As-  Provide, 
sembly  or  any  part  thereof  any  Power  or  Privi- 
ledge  whatever  that  any  General  Assembly  or 
any  part  thereof  heretofore  of  Right  had  might 
could  or  ought  to  have  had  in  the  said  Province 
anything  herein  Contained  to  the  Contrary  in 
anywise  notwithstanding.     PROVIDED  ALWAYS  Proviso. 
that  this  Act  or   any  part  thereof  shall  not  be 
construed  to  take  away  the  power  and  prerog- 
ative  given    the    Governor    or    Commander  in 
Chief  for  the  time  being  from  the  Crown  to  ad- 
journ prorogue  or  dissolve  any  General  Assem- 
bly of  this  Province  when  and  as  often  as  he 
shall  think  fit  and  expedient  so  to  do  or  to  take 
any  other  power  or  Prerogative  whatever  had 
from  the  Crown. 

By  order  of  the  By  order  of  the 

Upper  House.  Commons  House  of  Assembly. 

JAMES  HABERSHAM.  GREY  ELLIOTT,  Speaker. 

In  the  Council  Chamber 

the  Ninth  day  of  June,  1761. 

Assented  to, 

G.  A.  WRIGHT. 


288 


APPENDICES. 


AN  ACT. 

To  ascertain  the  manner  and  form  of  Electing  Members  to 
represent  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Province  in  the  Commons 
House  of  Assembly. 

first  Time  2/th  March. 
Second  Time  3Oth  - 


Read 


third  Time  9*  April 
and  passed  the  Commons 
House  of  Assembly. 


1761. 


THOS.  HARRINGTON,  Clerk. 

Upper  House, 
f  first  Time    ioth  April.  "1 

Second  Time  13th 

Read   <<  >    l?6l. 

I   third  Time  10*  May      f 

[_  and  passed. 

CHAS.  WATSON,  C.  G.  A. 
9  June  1761. 

OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 

ATLANTA,  GA.,  April  2ist,  1892. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  Seven  (7)  pages  con- 
tain a  true  and  correct  copy  of  An  Act  now  of  file  in  this 
office,  "  to  assertain  the  manner  and  form  of  electing  mem- 
bers to  represent  the  inhabitants  of  this  Province  in  the 
Commons  House  of  Assembly."  Assented  to  June  9th,  1761. 
Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal. 

[Signed]  PHILIP  COOK, 

Secretary  of  State. 


APPENDIX  C. 

AUTHORITIES  QUOTED. 

ALBANY.     Collections  on  the  History  of  Albany.    4  vols.     Albany,  1865-70. 

ALLINSON'S  LAWS.    See  NEW  JERSEY. 

AMES  AND  GOODELL.    See  MASSACHUSETTS. 

ARNOLD,  SAMUEL  G.  History  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plan- 
tations. 1636-1790.  2  vols.  New  York,  1859-60. 

BACON'S  LAWS.    See  MARYLAND. 

BALDWIN,  SIMEON  E.  Early  History  of  the  Ballot  in  Connecticut.  Publica- 
tions of  the  American  Historical  Association,  pt.  iv,  90,  Series  of  1890. 

BANCROFT,  GEORGE.  History  of  the  United  States.  9  vols.  23rd  ed.  Boston, 
1870. 

BELKNAP,  JEREMY.     History  of  New  Hampshire.     3  vols.     Philadelphia,  Boston, 

1784-92. 

BOZMAN,  JOHN  LEEDS.     History  of  Maryland.     2  vols.     Baltimore,  1837. 
BRIGHAM.    See  PLYMOUTH. 
BRODHEAD,  JOHN  ROMEYN.    History  of  the  State  of  New  York.    2  vols.    New 

York,  1859-71. 

BRYCE,  JAMES.     The  American  Commonwealth.     2  vols.     2d  ed.     London,  1889. 
CENTURY  DICTIONARY.    6  vols.    New  York,  1889-91. 
CAMPBELL,  DOUGLAS.     The  Puritan  in  Holland^  England  and  America.    2  vols. 

New  York,  1892. 

CHALMERS,  GEORGE.    Political  Annals  of  the  Present  United  Colonies.    Lon- 
don, 1780. 
COFFIN,  JOSHUA.     Sketch  of  the  History  of  Newbury,  Newburyport  and  West 

Newburv.    Boston,  1845. 
GOLDEN,   CADWALLADER.    History  of  the  Five  Indian  Nations  of  Canada. 

London,  1747. 
COLONIAL  CHARTERS.    A  list  of  copies  of  Charters  from  the  Commissioners  for 

Trade  and  Plantations.     London,  1741. 
CONNECTICUT.    Laws.    Cambridge,  1673. 


2QO 


APPENDICES. 


CONNECTICUT.     Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesties  Colony  of  Connecticut  in 

England.     New  London,  1715. 

This  is  the  edition  generally  referred  to  in  the  course  of  this  work  as  Ses- 
sion Laws.  •  In  Connecticut  as  well  as  in  one  or  two  of  the  other  Colonies 
the  laws  passed  at  each  successive  session  of  the  general  court  were 
printed  and  paged  in  continuation  until  a  new  revision  was  made. 

Acts  and  Laws.    New  London,  1750. 

The  second  revision. 

Acts  and  Laws.     New  London,  1769. 

Public  Acts.     1819. 

Public  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  1636-1777.   15  vols.     Hart- 
ford, 1850-90. 

COOPER.    See  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 
Cox,  EVERSHAM.     Antient  Parliamentary  Elections.     London,  1868. 

DE  FRANQUEVILLE,  ALFRED,  C.  E.  F.     Le  Gouvernment  et  le  Parlement  Brittan- 
iques.     3  vols.     Paris,  1887. 

DELAWARE.    Laws.     Printed  by  B.  FRANKLIN  and  D.  HALL.  Philadelphia,  1752. 

Laws,  Vol.  II.     Printed  by  JAMES  ADAMS.     Wilmington,  1763. 

Laws,  1700-1792.     2  vols.     Printed  by  JAMES  ADAMS,  New  Castle,  1797. 

DOUGLAS,  WILLIAM.     A  Summary  Historical  and  Political,  &c.,  of  the  British 
Settlements  in  North  America.     Boston,  1747. 

DUKE'S  LAWS.     See  PENNSYLVANIA. 

ENGLAND.     The  Statutes  at  Large.     Magna  Charta  to  25  Geo.  III. 

There  are  a  number  of  editions  of  the  Statutes,  that  of  Ruffhead  (18  vols, 
London,  1763-1800),  probably  being  the  best. 

FARMER,  JOHN  and  MOORE,  JACOB.     New  Hampshire  Historical  Collections.    3 
vols.     Concord,  1822-24. 

GEORGIA.     Digest  of  the  Laws  of  the  State  of  Georgia.  Compiled  by  W  ATKINS. 

Philadelphia,  1800. 
A  Codification  of  the  Statute  Law  of  Georgia.  By  WILLIAM  A.  HoTCH- 

KISS.    New  York,  1845. 

Acts  passed  by  the   General  Assembly,  1755-1774.      Now  first  printed. 

Philadelphia,  1881. 
GNEIST,  RUDOLF  VON.     History  cfthe  English  Constitution.    2  vols.    Translated. 

New  York,  1886. 

GORDON,  THOMAS  F.     The  History  of  Pennsylvania.     Philadelphia,  1829. 
HARRINGTON,  JAMES.    Works,  edited  by  TOLAND.    London,  1771. 
HAWKS,  FRANCIS  L.     History  of  Nortfi  Carolina.     2  vols.    Fayetteville,  1857-8. 
HENING.    See  VIRGINIA. 


APPENDICES. 


291 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.     Resolutions  and  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

This  is  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons.  From  1547  to  1860,  115 
volumes  were  published,  the  first  seventeen  volumes  covering  the  period 
from  1547  to  1714. 

HOWARD,  GEORGE  E.     An  Introduction  to  the  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the 

United  States.     Vol.  I.     Baltimore,  1889. 
LEAMING  AND  SPICER.    See  NEW  JERSEY. 
LECHFORD,  THOMAS.    Plaine  Dealing;  or  Newes  from  New  England.     London, 

1642. 
McMAHON,  JOHN  V.  L.     An  Historical  View  of  the  Government  of  Maryland. 

Baltimore,  1831. 
MARTIN,  FRANCIS  XAVIER.     The  History  of  North    Carolina.     2  vols.     New 

Orleans,  1829, 

MARYLAND.     Acts  of  Assembly.     Printed  by  JOHN  BASKETT.     London,  1723. 

Laws  of  Maryland  at  Large.     Edited  by  THOMAS  BACON.    Baltimore, 

1765. 

This  is  the  edition  referred  to  as  Bacon's  Laws.  The  pages  are  not  num- 
bered, but  are  headed  with  the  regnal  or  proprietary  years. 

Archives.     Proceedings   and  Acts   of  the  Assembly,   1637-83.      3   vols. 

Baltimore,  1883-9. 

MASSACHUSETTS.     The  Book  of  the  General  Laws  and  Libertyes.     Cambridge, 
1660. 

The  General  Laws  and  Liberties.     Cambridge,  1672. 

There  were  numerous  supplements  to  the  editions  of  1 660  and  1672. 

Laws.     Edited  by  Wait.     Boston,  1814. 

This  reprint  contains  nearly  all  the  laws  issued  under  the  charter  of  1628. 

Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New 

England.     5  vols.  in  6.     Boston,  1853-4. 

Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay.     Edited  by  AMES 

and  GOODELL.     4  vols.     Boston,  1869. 

This  reprint  contains  nearly  all  the  session  laws  made  under  the  charter  of 
1691. 

MASSACHUSETTS  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.     Collections.    Vol.  23.    Boston,  1833. 
MOORE,  JOHN  W.    History  of  North  Carolina,     2  Vols.     Raleigh,  1880. 
NEVILL'S  LAWS.    See  NEW  JERSEY. 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE.    Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  DANIEL  FOWLE,  Portsmouth. 

1761. 
Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  DANIEL  and  ROBERT  FOWLE,  Portsmouth, 

1771. 
Provincial  Papers.     1 6  vols.     Concord,  1867-87. 


292 


APPENDICES. 


NEW  HAVEN.    Laws.    London,  1656. 

Records  of  the  Colony  and  Jurisdiction.     1638-1665.     2  vols.     Hartford, 

1857-8. 

NEW  JERSEY.    Laws.    Printed  by  WILLIAM  BRADFORD.    New  York,  1704. 

The  Acts  of  the   General  Assembly.     Edited  by  SAMUEL  NEVILI.,  Esq. 

Philadelphia,  1752. 

A  second  volume  published  in  1761  contains  the  laws  enacted  after  1752. 

The  Grants,  Concessions  and  Original  Constitutions  of  the  Province  of 

New   Jersey.     The  Acts  passed  during  the  Proprietary    Governments. 
Edited  by  AARON  LEAMING  and  JACOB  SPICER.     Philadelphia,  1 758. 

Acts  of  the  General  Assembly.     Edited  by  SAMUEL  ALLINSON.     Burling- 
ton, 1776. 
: —  Archives  of  the  State.     10  vols.     Newark,  1 880-8. 

NEW  YORK.     The  Laws.     Printed  by  WILLIAM  BRADFORD,  New  York,  1710. 
Journal  of  the    Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 

Colony.     1691-1765.     2  vols.     New  York,  1 764-66. 
Laws  of  New  York  from  ibqi  to  1773  inclusive.     Edited  by  PETER  VAN 

SCHAACK.     2  vols.  paged  consecutively.     New  York,  1774. 
Documents  relative  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  New  York.     14 

vols.     Albany,  1856-1883. 
Manual  of  the  Common  Council  of  New  York.     New  York,  1868. 

NEW  YORK  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.     Collections.    3d  series.    Vol.  Ill,  pt.  i.    New 
York,  1857. 

Collections  for  the  year  1885.     The  Burghers  of  New  Amsterdam  and 

the  Freemen  of  New  York,  1675-1866.     New  York,  1886. 

NORTH  CAROLINA.     A  Collection  of  all  the  Public  Acts  of  Assembly.     Edited  by 
SWANN.     Printed  by  JAMES  DAVIS,  Newbern,  1752. 

A  Collection  oj  all  the  Acts  of  Assembly.     Newbern,  1 764. 

A  complete  Revisal  of  all  the  Acts  of  Assembly.     Printed  by  DAVIS,  New- 
bern, 1773. 
Colonial  Records,  1662-1776.     10  vols.     Raleigh,  1886-90. 

O'CALLAGHAN,  E.  B.     History  of  the  New  Netherland.     2  vols.      New  York, 

1846-8. 

Introduction  to  the  Journal  of  the  New  York  Legislative  Council.     Lat- 
ter in  2  vols.     Albany,  1861. 
Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherland,  1638-74.     Albany,  1868. 

PALFREY,  JOHN  G.    History  of  New  England.    4  vols.     Boston,  1859-75. 


APPENDICES.  293 

PENNSYLVANIA.    A  Collection  of  all  the  Laws  of  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania  Xow 
in  Force.     Printed  by  B.  FRANKLIN,  Philadelphia,  1742. 

This  as  well  as  most  of  the  other  editions  of  the  Pennsylvania  laws,  contains 
the  charters. 

Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Province 

of  Pennsylvania,  1682-1776.     6  vols.     Philadelphia,  1752-76. 

The  Charters  and  Acts  of  Assembly.     2  vols.     Printed  by  PETER  MILLER 

and  Comp.     Philadelphia,  1762. 

The  Acts  of  Assembly.     Printed  by  HALL  AND  SELLERS.     Philadelphia, 

1775- 

Archives.     12  vols.     Philadelphia,  1852-6. 

Colonial  Records.     17  vols.     Philadelphia,  1852-60. 

Charter  and  Laws,  1676—1700.      Printed    by  Authority  of   the    State. 

Harrisburg,  1879. 

This  edition  contains  not  only  the  laws  and  charters  of  Penn's  government 
down  to  1 700,  but  also  the  Duke  of  York's  Book  of  Laws.  The  latter  is 
the  code  promulgated  at  the  East  Hampton  convention  of  1664,  together 
with  the  additions  and  amendments  made  subsequently  by  the  court  of 
assizes.  See  p.  19,  ante. 

PLOWDEN,  EDMOND.     Commentaries.     English  Law  Reports,  1550-80.     2  vols. 
PLYMOUTH.    Laws.    Edited  by  BRIGHAM.    Boston,  1836. 

Most  of  the  laws  contained  in  this  volume  were  also  reprinted  in  the  eleventh 
volume  of  the  Plymouth  Colony  Records. 

New  Plymouth  Colony  Records.     12  vols.  in  10.     Boston,  1855-61. 

POORE,  B.  PERLEY,  editor.     Federal  and  State   Constitutions.     2  vols.     Wash- 
ington, 1877. 

PROUD,  ROBERT.    History  of  Pennsylvania.     2  vols.     Philadelphia,  1797. 

PRYNNE,  WILLIAM.     Brevia  Pariamentaria  Rediviva.     London,  1662. 

RAMSAY,  DAVID.    History  of  South  Carolina.     2  vols.     Charleston,  1809. 

RHODE  ISLAND.    Acts  and  Laws.    Boston,  1719. 

Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  JAMES  FRANKLIN,  Newport,  1730. 

Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  the  WIDOW  FRANKLIN.     Newport,  1744. 

Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  J.  FRANKLIN.    Newport,  1752. 

Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  SAMUEL  HALL.     Newport,  1767. 

This  is  Hall's  Code. 

Acts  and  Laws.     Printed  by  SOLOMON  SOUTHWICK.      Newport,  1 772. 

— Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations:     10 

vols.     Providence,  1856-65. 

RHODE  ISLAND  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY,  Proceedings  of.    Providence,  1872-3. 

RIDER,  S.  S.     An  Inquiry  concerning  the  Origin  of  the  Clause  in  the  Laws  of 


294  APPENDICES. 

Rhode  Island  (77/9— Ty^j)  disfranchising  Roman  Catholics.     Providence, 

1889. 
RIVERS,  WILLIAM  JAMES.  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Soiith  Carolina.  Charleston, 

1856. 
SALKELD,  WILLIAM.  English  Law  Reports.  1689-1712.  3  vols. 

SHARPE,  GOVERNOR  KORATIO.  Correspondence,  1753-61.  2  vols.  in  Maryland 
Archives.  Baltimore,  1889-90. 

SMITH,  SAMUEL.     History  of  New  Jersey.     Burlington,  1765. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.     The  Laws.    Edited  by  NICHOLAS  TROTT.    Charleston,  1736. 

Statutes  at  large   of  South   Carolina.     Edited  by  T.  COOPER.     4  vols. 

Columbia,  1836-8. 

STEVENS,  WILLIAM  B.  History  of  Georgia  to  1798.  2  vols.  New  York,  Phila- 
delphia, 1847-59. 

STITH,  WILLIAM.  The  History  of  the  First  Discovery  and  Settlement  of  Virginia. 
Williamsburg,  1747. 

STUBBS,  WILLIAM.  Constitutional  History  of  England.  3  vols.  4th  ed.  Ox- 
ford, 1883. 

SWIFT,  ZEPHANIAH.  A  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut.  2  vols.  Windham, 
1795-6- 

TROWARD,  RICHARD.     A  Collection  of  the  Statutes  in  force  relating  to  Elections. 

London,  1790. 

Most  of  the  English  Statutes  at  Large  which  have  been  quoted  in  this  work 
are  to  be  found  in  Troward's  collection. 

WALSH,  ROBERT.  An  Appeal  from  the  Judgments  of  Great  Britain.  Philadel- 
phia, 1819. 

WEISE,  ARTHUR  J.     History  of  Albany.     Albany,  1884. 

WHITEHEAD,  WILLIAM  A.  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietary  Governments. 
2d  ed.  Newark,  1875. 

WiNSOR,  JUSTIN,  editor.     Memorial  History  of  .Boston.    4  vols.    Boston,  1880-1. 

Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America.     8  vols.     Boston,  1889. 

WINTHROP,  GOVERNOR  JOHN,  journal.  Edited  by  JAMES  SAVAGE,  under  the 
title  of:  The  History  of  New  England,  1630—1649.  Hartford,  1790. 

VAN  SCHAACK'S  LAWS.    See  NEW  YORK. 

VINER,  CHARLES.  A  general  Abridgment  of  Law  and  Equity.  30  vols.  2d  ed. 
London, 1791-4. 

VIRGINIA.  The  Statutes  at  Large  ;  being  a  Collection  of  all  the  Laws  of  Virginia 
from  the  first  session  of  (he  Legislature  in  the  year  1619.  Edited  by  WIL- 
LIAM WALLER  HENING.  13  vols.  New  York,  Richmond,  Philadelphia, 
1819-23. 


APPENDICES. 


295 


NOTE  :  Besides  the  editions  of  the  statutes  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  list,  the 
writer  has  made  a  personal  examination  of  the  Charlemagne  Tower  collection  of 
American  colonial  laws,  in  the  Library  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Associa- 
tion. In  addition  he  has  consulted  the  collections  of  the  New  York  Bar  Associa- 
tion and  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  which  are  excelled  in  completeness 
only  by  the  Philadelphia  collection,  and  which  contains  some  volumes  not  in- 
cluded in  the  latter.  A  few  statutes  which  it  is  believed  were  not  published  in 
any  of  the  known  editions  of  the  colonial  laws,  were  transcribed  from  the  origi- 
nals now  on  file  in  the  capitals  of  the  various  States  or  from  copies  in  the  British 
Public  Record  Office  in  London,  and  are  published  in  Appendix  B  of  this  work. 


APPENDIX  D. 

TABLE  OF  BRITISH  REGNAL  YEARS, 

FROM  THE  FIRST  PARLIAMENT  UP  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  COLONIAL  PERIOD. 
FOR  CONVENIENCE  OF  REFERENCE  TO  THE   STATUTES  AT  LARGE. 


Sovereign. 

Commencement  of  Reign. 

Number  of 
Regnal  Years. 

1C 

Edward  II  

July  8th   1307  

20 

Edward  III  

C  I 

Richard  II  

June  22nd   1377  

2? 

Henry  IV  

September  3Oth    1399  

Henry  V  

March  21  st    1413  

IO 

Henry  VI  

?Q 

Edward  IV  

Richard  III  

Tune  26th    1483  

Henry  VII  

2/1 

Henry  VIII  

April  22nd  I  ^09  

•}K 

Edward  VI  

January  28th    i  "547  

7 

Tulv  6th    ice?.. 

I 

November  I7th    1*558  

4.C 

2/L 

I  I 

Charles  II  '  

May  29th    1660  

11 

February  6th    168?  

February  1  3th    1  689  

1A. 

March  8th  1  702  

il 

Georp-e   III  .  . 

60 

1  Although  Charles  II  did  not  ascend  the  throne  until  May  2gth,  1660,  his  regnal  years  were 
computed  from  the  death  of  Charles  I,  January  soth,  1649.     The  year  of  the  restoration  of  Charles 
II  is  therefore  styled  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign. 

2  After  the  death  of  Mary  on  December  28th,  1694,  William  reigned  alone  under  the  style  of 
William  III. 


APPENDICES. 


297 


TABLE  OF  PROPRIETARY  YEARS  OF  THE  LORDS 
BALTIMORE. 

FOR  CONVENIENCE  OF   REFERENCE  TO  THE   MARYLAND   STATUTES. 


Proprietor. 

Commencement  of  Proprietorship. 

Number  of 
Proprietary   Years. 

June  2oth    1632  «  • 

Charles  l  

November  3Oth  167?  

AO 

Charles  

April  1  6th   1714   

IT 

Anril  27rd.  I7CI  .. 

2O 

1  From  August,  1691,  to  May,  1715,  the  government  of  Maryland  was  administered  by  the 
Crown. 

George  Calvert,  the  first  Lord  Baltimore,  died  before  the  Charter  passed  the  Great  Seal.  He 
was  therefore  never  proprietor.  The  title  ceased  with  Frederick,  sixth  Lord  Baltimore,  who  died 
in  1771,  leaving  no  legitimate  issue. 


The  compound  dates  (e.  g.  1635-6)  used  in  the  course  of  this 
work  refer  to  that  part  of  the  calendar  year  which  preceded  the  com- 
mencement of  the  new  year.  Until  after  the  adoption  of  the  New 
Style  by  act  of  Parliament  in  1751,  the  new  year  began  in  the  month 
of  March.  January,  February  and  part  of  March  were  therefore 
reckoned  in  both  years. 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 

A  review  devoted  to  the  historical,  statistical  and  comparative  study 
of  politics,  economics  and  public  law. 


Plan. — The  field  of  the  Quarterly  is  indicated  by  its  title;  its  object  is  to  give  the  results 
of  scientific  investigation  in  this  field.  The  Quarterly  follows  the  most  important  movements 
of  foreign  politics,  but  dovotes  chief  attention  to  questions  of  present  interest  in  the  United 
States.  On  such  questions  its  attitude  is  non-partisan.  Every  article  is  signed  ;  and  every  arti 
cle,  including  those  of  the  editors,  expresses  simply  the  personal  view  of  the  writer. 

Editors. — The  Quarterly  is  under  the  editorial  management  of  theUniversityFaculty  of 
Political  Science,  Columbia  College. 

Contributors. — The  list  includes  university  and  college  teachers,  politicians,  lawyers, 
journalists  and  business  men  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  and  English  and  Continental  pro- 
fessors and  publicists.  Among  the  contributors  of  the  past  seven  years  have  been,  in  addition  to 
the  members  of  the  faculty : 

Prof.  H.  C.  Adams  (Mich.  U.),  Statistician  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  ;  Pres. 
Andrews  (Brown  U.);  H.  O.  Arnold-Forster;  Prof.  Ashley  (Toronto  U.);  H.  H.  Asquith,  M.P.. 
Sir  Geo.  Baden-Powell;  Frederic  Bancroft,  Librarian  State  Dept.  U.  S.  A.;  Prof.  15emis  (Van- 
derbiltU.);  E.  G.  Bourne  (Western  Reserve  U.);  J.  E.  Bowen,  The  Independent ;  J.G.  Brooks 
(Harrard  U.);  E.  P.  Cheyney  (Penn.  U.);  Prof.  J.  B.  Clark  (Smith  Coll.);  Prof.  Cohn  (Gottin- 
gen  U.);  Clarence  Deming,  New  Haven  News ;  Rev.  S.  W.  Dike;  Hon.  J.  F.  Dillon;  J.  P. 
Dunn,  Jr.,  State  Librarian  (Ind.);  Prof.  Elliott  (Minn.  U.);  R.  P.  Falkner  (Penn.  U.):  Prof 
Farnam  (Yale  U.);  W.  C.  Ford,  (formerly  of  the)  State  Dept.  U.  S.  A.;  Kuno  Francke  (Har- 
vard U.):  A.  Gauvain,  Le  Temps  (Paris);  Prof.  Giddings  (Bryn  Mawr  Coll.);  Prof.  Gide  (Mont- 
pellier,  France),  Revue  d'  feconomie  Politique ;  George  Gunton  ;  Prof.  Hadley  (Yale  U.);  Prof. 
Hart  (Harvard  U.);  Geo.  K.  Holmes,  Census  Bureau,  U.S.A.;  Prof.  Howard  (Neb.  U.);  Prof. 
Hudson  (Mich.  U.);  Prof.  Huff  (Vermont  U.);  Hon.  Wm.  M.  Ivins;  Prof.  James  (Penn.  U.); 
Hon.  John  A.  Jameson ;  Prof.  Jenks  (Ind.  U.);  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Langdon  ;  Prof.  Laughlin  (Cor- 
nell U.);  Hon.  Alfred  E.  Lee;  Prof.  Levermore  (Mass.  Tech.  Inst.);  Pres.  Low  (Columbia 
Coll.);  Prof.  Maitland  (Cambridge  U.):  Brander  Matthews :  J.  B.  Moore,  State  Dept.  U.  S.  A.: 
Prof.  Morse  (Amherst  Coll.);  Prof.  G.  B.  Newcomb  (N.  Y.  City  Coll.);  Prof.  Patten  (Penn.U.): 
J.  B.  Perkins;  Fred.  Perry  Powers,  Chicago  Times;  E.  I.  Renick,  Treasury  Dept.,  U.  S.  A.; 
Hon.  Theodore  Roosevelt;  Hon.  Irving  B.  Richman ;  Hon.  Eugene  Schuyler;  Hon.  W.  L 
Scruggs  ;  Prof.  Shaw  (Cornell  U.);  Freeman  Snow  (Harvard  U.);  C.  B.  Spahr,  N.Y.  Commer- 
cial Advertiser ;  F.  J.  Stimson  ;  Prof.  Taussig  (Harvard  U.);  Prof.  Trent  (Sewanee  U.);  Pres. 
Walker  (Mass.  Tech.  Inst.);  Prof.  Warner  (Neb.  U.);  Prof.  Woodrow  Wilson  (Coll.  of  N.  J.); 
Horace  White,  N.  Y.  Evening  Post. 

Reviews. — Each  number  contains  careful  reviews  by  specialists  of  recent  publications. 

Record. — The  Record  of  Political  Events,  published  twice  a  year,  gives  a  resume  of  politi- 
cal and  social  movements  throughout  the  world. 

Communications  in  reference  to  articles,  reviews  and  exchanges,  should  be  addressed  to  Prof. 
W.  A.  DUNNING,  Columbia  College,  N.  Y.  City.  Subscriptions  should  be  forwarded, 
»nd  all  business  communications  addressed,  to  GINN  «t  COMPANY,  70  Fifth  Ave.,  N.  Y. 
City  ;  180  W  abash  Ave.,  Chicago  ;  9  and  13  Tremont  Place,  Boston. 


Yearly  Subscription,  Three  Dollars.     Back  Numbers  and  bound  Vol- 
umes can  be  obtained  from  the  publishers. 


COLUMBIA   COLLEGE 

University  Faculty  of  Political  Science. 


Seth  Low,  LL.D.,  President.  J.  W.  Burgess,  LL.D.,  Prof,  of  Constitutional  History 
and  Law.  Richmond.  Ma.vo-Smith,  Ph.D.,  Prof,  of  Political  Economy.  Munroe 
Smith,  J.  U.  D.,  Prof,  of  Comparative  Jurisprudence.  F.  J.  Goodnow,  LL.B.,  Prof,  of 
Administrative  Law.  E.  R.  A.  Seltgmaii,  Ph.D.,  Prof,  of  Political  Economy  and  Finance. 
H.  L.  Osgood,  Ph.D.,  (Adj.)  Prof,  of  History.  W.  A.  Dunning,  Ph.D.,  (Adj.)  Prof,  of 
History.  J.  B.  Moore,  A.  M.,  Prof,  of  International  Law.  F.  W.  Whitridge,  LL.B., 
Lecturer  on  the  History  of  New  York.  A.  C.  Beruheim,  Ph.D.,  Lecturer  on  City  Politics. 
Frederic  Bancroft,  Ph.D  ,  Lecturer  on  American  History.  C.  B.  Spahr,  Ph.D.,  Lec- 
turer on  Taxation.  F.  H.  GUldingg,  A.  M.,  Lecturer  on  Sociology.  Ernest  Freuiid, 
J.U.D.  Lecturer  on  Administration.  8.  F.  Weston,  A.M.,  Assistant  in  Economics. 


COURSES  OP  LECTURES. 

I.     HISTORY.—  (i)  Outlines  of  Mediaeval  History  (undergraduate  course)  ;  (2)  Outlines 
of  Modern   History  (undergraduate  course)  ;   (3)  European  History  since  1815  (undergraduate 


American  Colonies  ;  (9)  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States  since  1861  ;  (10)  Political 
History  of  New  York  State;  (n)  History  of  the  Relations  between  England  and  Ireland;  (12) 
Historical  and  Political  Geography  ;  (13)  History  of  France  since  1830  ;  (14)  Seminarium  in  Eu- 
ropean History  ;  (15)  Seminarium  in  American  History. 

II.  POLITICAL  ECONOMY.—  (i)  Elements  of  Political  Economy  (undergraduate 
course);  (2)  Historical  and    Practical   Political  Economy;  (3)  Science   ot  Finance;  (4)  Commu- 
nism and  Socialism  ;  (5)  Statistics  :  Methods  and  Results  ;  (6)  History  of  Economic  Theories  ; 

(7)  Financial  History  of  the  United  States;  (8)  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States;  (9)  Railroad 
Problems  ;  (10)  Taxation  and  Distribution  ;  (n)  Sociology  ;  (12)  Crime  and  Penology  ;  (13)  Sem- 
inarium in  Political  Economy  ;    (14)  Seminarium  in  Science  of  Finance  ;    (15)  Seminarium  in 
Social  Science. 

III.  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  __  (i)  Compara- 
tive Constitutional  Law  of  Europe  and  the  United  States;  (2)  Comparative  Constitutional  Law 
of  the  Commonwealths  of  the  United  States  ;  (3)  Administrative  Law  ;  (4)  Law  of  Taxation  ;  (5) 
Municipal  Corporations  ;    (6)  City  and  State  1'olitics  ;  (7)  Seminarium  in  Constitutional  Law  ; 

(8)  Seminarium  in  Administration. 

IV.  DIPLOMACY  ANI>  INTERNATIONAL  LAW.—  (i)  History  of  European 
Diplomacy  ;  (2)  History  ol  American  Diplomacy;  (3)  Principles  of  International  Law;  (4)  Ex- 
tradition; (5)  Seminarium  in  International  Law. 

V.  ROMAN  LAW  AND  COMPARATIVE  JURISPRUDENCE.—  (i)  Insti- 
tutes of  Roman  Law  ;  (2)  History  of  European  Law,  to  Justinian  ;  (3)  History  of  European  Law, 
since  Justinian  ;  (4)  Comparative  Jurisprudence  :  General  Principles  ;  (5)  Comparative  Jurispru- 
dence :  Special  Relations  ;  (6)  International  Private  Law  ;  (7)  Seminarium  in  Comparative  Leg- 
slation. 

VI.  POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY.—  (i)  History  of  Political  Theories,  ancient  and 
mediaeval  ;  (2)  History  of  Political  Theories.,  modern  :   (3)  History  of  American  Political  Philos- 
ophy ;  (4)  Seminarium  in  Political  Theories  of  the  XlXih  Century. 


The  course  of  study  covers  three  years.  The  degree  of  A.  B.  is  conferred  at  the  end  of  the 
first  year;  A.M.  at  tl.e  end  of  the  second;  and  Ph.D.  at  the  end  of  the  third.  Any  person 
not  a  candidate  for  a  degiee  may  attend  any  of  the  courses  at  any  time  by  payment  of  a  propor- 
tional fee.  Twenty-four  fellowships  at  $500  each  are  awarded  to  advanced  students. 
Three  prize  lectureships  of  $500  each  for  three  years  are  open  to  competition  of  graduates. 
For  further  information  address  REGISTRAR. 


IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW, 

EDITED  BY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 


OF  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE. 


I. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem — A  Study  in  Statistics. 

By  Walter  F.  Willcox,  Ph.  D.     Price, 

2.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration   in  the  United 

States,   from    Colonial    Times    to   the    McKinley 
Administrative  Bill. 

By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.  D.     Price,  5oc. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan 

Island. 

By  George  Ashton  Black,  Ph.  D.    Price,  5oc. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  Charles  H.  J.  Douglas,  Ph.  D.     Price  $1.00. 
Vol.  I  complete,  396  pp.,  price,  $2.00;    bound,  $2.50. 


II. 

1.  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village. 

By  Isaac  A.  Hourwich,  Ph.  D.     Price,  $1.00. 

2.  Bankruptcy.     A  Study  in  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  Samuel  W.  Dunscomb,  Jr.,  Ph.  D.     Price,  75c. 

3.  Special  Assessments  :  A  Study  in  Municipal  Finance. 

By  Victor  Rosewater,  Ph.  D.     Price,  75C. 
Vol.  II  complete,  503  pp.,  price,  $2.00;  bound,  $2.50. 

1.  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Cortlandt  F.  Bishop,  Ph.  D — Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  Amer- 

ican Colonies. 

By  George  L.  Beer,  A.  M.     Price,  $1.00. 
Vol.  Ill  complete,  price  $2.00;  bound,  $2.50. 


1.  Financial  History  of  Virgipia. 

By  W.  Z.  Ripley,  Ph.  D.— Price,  ;sc. 

2.  The  Inheritance  Tax. 

By  Max  West,  Ph.  D.— Price,  ysc. 

For  further  information  apply  to 

Professor  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN. 

COLUMBIA  COLLEGE,  NEW  YORK. 


